شيماء عبد عبد الامير

IRAQI EFL LEARNERS' USE OF THE SPEECH
ACT OF PROHIBITION
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL OF THE COLLEGE OF

EDUCATION FOR HUMAN SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF
BABYLON IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER IN
ENGLISH LANGUAGE / LINGUISTICS
BY
SHAYMAA ABID ABDUL AMEER ALKHAFAGY
SUPERVISED BY
PROF. RAZZAQ NAIF MUKHEEF AL-SHAFIE
FEBRUARY 2013 A. D. RABEEALAKHAR 1434 A. H.

‫اﻟر ِﺣﯾم‬
‫اﻟر ّﺣﻣن ﱠ‬ ‫ِﺑﺳم ﷲ َ‬
‫ﯾزان ﺑﺎ ٌ ْﻟ ِﻘ ْ‬
‫ﺳط َو‬ ‫ﻟﻣ َ‬ ‫ﻘوم أَ ْوﻓُواْ ا ٌ ْﻟ ِﻣ ْﻛﯾَﺎ َل َو ا ٌ ِ‬
‫۞ َوﯾـــﺂـــ ْ‬
‫ﺎس أَﺷْﯾﺎ َء ُھ ْم َو َﻻ ﺗَ ْﻌﺛَ ْواْ ﻓِﻲ أَ ْﻷ ِ‬
‫رض‬ ‫ﺳواْ اٌﻟﻧﱠ َ‬
‫َﻻ ﺗَ ْﺑ َﺧ ُ‬
‫ِﯾن ۞‬ ‫ﺳد َ‬ ‫ُﻣﻔ ِ‬
‫ق ﷲُ اﻟﻌﻠﻲ اﻟ َﻌ ِظﯾ ْم‬
‫ﺻ َد َ‬
‫ﺳورة ھود‬
‫اﻵﯾﺔ‬
‫)‪(۸٥‬‬
I certify that the thesis entitled (Iraqi EFL Learners' Use of the
Speech Act of Prohibition) written by (Shaymaa Abid Abdul Ameer
Alkhafagy) has been prepared under my supervision at the College of
Education for Human Sciences, University of Babylon, as a partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English
Language and Linguistics.
Signature:
Supervisor: Prof. Razzaq Naif Mukheef Al-Shafie
Date:
In view of the available recommendations, I forward this thesis for

debate by the Examining Committee.
Signature
Name: Prof. Fareed H. H. Al-Hindawy (Ph.D.)
Head of the English Department
College of Education for Human Sciences
University of Babylon
Date:
ii
We certify that we have read the thesis entitled (Iraqi EFL Learners'
Use of the Speech Act of Prohibition) and, as Examining Committee,
examined the student ''Shaymaa Abid Abdul Ameer Alkhafagy'' in its
content, and that in our opinion it is adequate as a thesis for the degree of
Master of Arts in English Language and Linguistics.
Signature: Signature:
Name: Name:
(Member) (Member)
Signature:
Name:
(Chairman)
Date:
Approved by the Council of the College of Education for Human Sciences
Signature:
Name: Prof. Dr. Fahim Hussein Al-Turayhi
Deputy Dean of the College of Education for Human Sciences
Date:
iii
To
my Beloved Father and Mother
with Eternal Love and Respect
To
my Brothers and Sisters
To
Those Whom I Owe all my Life:
Whose Love Runs in my
Bloodstream
iv
Acknowledgements
Primarily, I want to present all my thanks and praises to Almighty

Allah for blessing me with patience, endurance and giving me the will to
accomplish the present study.
I owe a special debt of gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Razzaq Naif
Mukheef Al-Shafie who closely read and criticized many times the earlier
drafts of this thesis with great care and scrupulousness. Indeed, I'm greatly
indebted for his invaluable comments, continual support and constructive
suggestions that helped me to carry out this work.
I am also thankful to all the members of the jury for their assistance in
preparing the test of the study.
My sincere thanks are due to Prof. Dr. Abbas D. Darweesh, Prof. Dr.
Fareed H. H. Al-Hindawy, Prof. Dr. Majeed Al-Mashta, Prof. Dr. Salih M.
Hameed, Prof. Dr. Hameed H. Bjaya, and Prof. Dr. Riyadh Tariq Kadhim
Al- Ameedi, College of Education for Human Sciences, Department of
English, University of Babylon for their valuable support.
Appreciation is also extended to my dearest brother Mr. Hisham Adnan
Jassim for his continuous support and help. I also thank my colleagues in
the course of Linguistics for providing me with certain references.
Finally, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my family for their
continuous help, care and support during my work on this thesis.
v
Abstract
This study is concerned with revealing some aspects of Iraqi EFL
learners' use of the speech act of prohibition. The study aims at (1)
investigating the ability of Iraqi EFL learners to distinguish the intended
speech act from other related acts particularly speech acts of (commanding,
advising, warning, requesting and threatening) when these are expressed by
similar linguistic devices in a number of situations, (2) investigating the
most common strategies adopted by Iraqi EFL learners for performing the
speech act of prohibition in certain situations.
These two objectives can be carried out through the following
hypotheses:
1. Iraqi EFL learners recognize explicit prohibitive expressions better than
implicit ones.
2. Such learners use explicit utterances to issue the speech act of
prohibition better than implicit ones.
3. Iraqi EFL learners show a greater tendency towards using a particular
prohibition strategy, i.e. particularly an explicit performative expression
strategy and negative imperative construction strategy, than others.
4. They also misinterpret prohibition with other relevant speech acts at the
recognition level.
To achieve the objectives of the study and verify or refute the
hypotheses, the researcher conducted a test in which 100 Iraqi EFL College
students at the fourth year stage, Department of English, College of
Education, University of Kerbala participated to respond to a two-part test.
Additionally, the learners' performance in Part 2 of the test is
compared to the performance of a control group, (10) native speakers of
English.
The analysis of the data confirms the hypotheses of the study and yields
the following:
vi
1. The learners distinguish the speech acts expressed by the
explicit constructions better than those expressed by the implicit
ones.
2. The learners tend to use explicit utterances that grant prohibition
better than implicit ones.
3. The learners have a tendency in using the explicit performative
expression strategy and negative imperative construction
strategy than others.
4. Iraqi EFL learners misinterpret the speech act of prohibition and
have a difficulty to recognize it from other speech acts as
commanding, advising, warning, requesting and threatening at the
recognition level.
5. They have a difficulty to issue the speech act of prohibition at the
production level.
The study falls into five chapters. Chapter One introduces the problem,
aims, hypotheses, procedure, limit and value of the study. Chapters Two
and Three are devoted to the theoretical framework of prohibition and
related speech acts respectively at pragmatic level. Chapter Four presents
the data collection and the analysis of the data by performing a test.
Chapter Five sums up the conclusions arrived at, some recommendations
and suggestions that help to conduct further studies.
vii
Contents
Subject Page
Acknowledgements v
Abstract vi
List of Tables viii
List of Figures xi
List of Abbreviations xii
List of Appendices xiv
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 The Problem 1
1.2 Aims of the Study 2
1.3 Hypotheses 2
1.4 Procedure 2
1.5 Limits of the Study 3
1.6 Value of the Study 3
Chapter Two
Speech Act of Prohibition: A Theoretical Background
2.1 Introduction 4
2.2 The Logic of Speech Act 4
2.2.1 Classifications of Speech Acts 6
2.2.2 Felicity Conditions 8
2.2.3 Speech Acts and Speech Events 10
2.2.4 Direct and Indirect Speech Acts 11
2.3 The Speech Act of Prohibition 14
2.3.1 The Concept of Prohibition 14
xv
2.3.2 Felicity Conditions of Prohibition 15
2.4 Kinds of Prohibition 18
2.4.1 Cessative Prohibition 18

2.4.2 Preventive Prohibition 19
2.5 Strategies of Expressing Prohibition 20
2.5.1 Prohibitive Performative Sentence 20
2.5.1.1 Str. 1: Explicit Prohibitive Performative Sentence 21
2.5.1.2 Str. 2: Implicit Prohibitive Performative Sentence 23
2.5.2 Str. 3: Imperative 25
2.5.3 Str. 4: Negative Imperative 26
2.5.3.1 Str. 5: Negative Imperative with Subject 27
2.5.3.2 Str.6: Negative Imperative with Tag Question 29
2.5.4 Str. 7: Avoid + Gerund ( + ing ) 29
2.5.5 Str. 8: Be + Not + To + Infinitive 30
2.5.6 Str. 9: Indirect Speech to Convey Prohibition 31

2.5.7 Str. 10: Block Language to Express Prohibition 32
2.5.8 Modality to Express Prohibition 34
2.5.8.1 Str. 11: "Must Not" 38
2.5.8.2 Str. 12: "May Not" 39
2.5.8.3 Str. 13: "Cannot" 40
2.5.8.4 Str. 14: "Shall Not" 41
2.5.9 Str.15: Prohibitive Subjunctive to Express Prohibition 41
2.6 The Relationship between Prohibition and Politeness 42
2.7 Intonation and Speech Act of Prohibition 43
xvi
2.8 The Stress Factor and Speech Act of Prohibition 44
2.9 Brown and Levinson's (1979) Model 46
2.10 A Model of the Analysis of the Speech Act of Prohibition's 47

Strategies
Chapter Three
Related Speech Acts: Directives and Commissives Speech
Acts
3.1 Introduction 50
3.2 Directive Speech Acts 50

3.2.1 The Nature of Command 50
3.2.1.1 Felicity Conditions of Command 54
3.2.2 The Nature of Advice and Warning 54
3.2.2.1 Felicity Conditions of Advice 58
3.2.2.2 Felicity Conditions of Warning 60
3.2.3 The Nature of Request 61
3.2.3.1 Felicity Conditions of Request 64
3.3 Commissive Speech Acts 64
3.3.1 The Nature of Threat 66
3.3.1.1 Felicity Conditions of Threat 70
Chapter Four
Data Collection and Analysis
4.1 Introduction 72
4.2 Data Collection 72
4.2.1 The Subjects 72
4.2.2 The Test 73
xvii
4.2.2.1 Test Validity 73
4.2.2.2 Test Reliability 75
4.2.2.3 The Pilot Study 76

4.2.2.4 Administration of the Task 76
4.2.2.5 Methods of Analysis 77
4.2.2.5.1 Analysis of Part 1 77
4.2.2.5.2 Analysis of Part 2 79
4.3 Data Analysis 80

4.3.1 Part 1 80
4.3.1.1 Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition 80

4.3.1.2 Subjects' Recognition of the Related Speech Acts 87
4.3.2 Part 2: Analysis of the SA of Prohibition's Strategies 93
4.3.2.1 Overall Performance 93
4.3.2.2 The Use of the SA of Prohibition's Strategies in Terms 93
of the Type of Situation
4.3.2.2.1 Analysis of the Use of SA of Prohibition's Strategies 93
in Type A Situations
4.3.2.2.2 Analysis of the Use of the SA of Prohibition's 102
Strategies in Type B Situations
4.3.2.2.3 Analysis of the Use of the SA of Prohibition's 110
Strategies in Type C Situations
Chapter Five
Conclusions, Recommendations and Suggestions
5.1 Introduction 114
5.2 Conclusions 114
xviii
5.2.1 The Learners' Performance at Part 1 of the Test 114
5.2.2 The Learners' performance at Part 2 of the Test 116
5.3 Pedagogical Recommendations 117
5.4 Suggestions for Further Research 118
Bibliography 119
Abstract in Arabic
xix
List of Tables
No. Titles Page
1 Bach and Harnishs' Classification of Speech Acts 16
2 Felicity Conditions for Prohibitive Acts 17
3 Comparison of Different Classifications of Speech Acts 17
4 Searle's Felicity Conditions for Command 54
Searle's Felicity Conditions for Advice 60

5
6 Searle's Felicity Conditions for Warning 61

Searle's Felicity Conditions for Request 64
7
8 Allan's Felicity Conditions for Threat 71
9 Distribution of the Scores of the Test 77
Assessment Scale of Learner's Recognition Ability 79

10
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition Expressed by 81

11 an Explicit Performative Expression

12 an Imperative Construction
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition Expressed by a 82
13 Negative Imperative Construction

14 the Verbs ''Avoid'', ''Stop'' and ''Not allowed''
viii
15 Be+ Not+ To+ Infinitive Construction

16 Reported Speech Construction
17 Brief Announcements and Block Language Expressions
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition Expressed by a 87
18 Modal Verb
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Command as a Related 88

۱۹
Speech Act
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Advice as a Related 88
۲۰ Speech Act
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Warning as a Related 89
۲۱ Speech Act
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Request as a Related 90
۲۲ Speech Act
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Threat as a Related Speech 91
۲۳ Act
Learners' Performance at the Recognition Level in terms of 92

۲٤ Percentage of Success
ix
Percentage of Using SA of Prohibition's Strategies in 96
Situations Type (A) Where a Speaker Talks to a Familiar
۲٥
Inferior with Whom S/he Has a Solidary Power Relationship

Situations Type (B) Where a Speaker Talks to a Familiar
۲٦ Inferior with Whom S/he Has a Non- Solidary Power

Relationship

Situations Type (C) Where a Speaker Talks to a Familiar
27
Equal with Whom S/he Has a Solidary Power Relationship
x
List of Figures
No. Title Page

1 Sentence Types and Communicative Functions 12
٢ The Deep Structure of Sentence (30) ٢٤
xi
List of Abbreviations
Symbol Description
A Action
BBC British Broadcasting Corporation
D Social Distance
EFL English as a Foreign Language
FCs Felicity Conditions
H Hearer
IFID(s) Illocutionary Force Indicating Device(s)
NECI New English Course for Iraq
NES(s) Native English Speaker(s)
NP Noun Phrase
OALD Oxford Advanced Language Dictionary
OALDNE Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary: New Edition
(2000)
Od Direct Object
P Relative Power
R Rank
S Speaker
SA(s)T Speech Act(s) Theory
SA(s) Speech Act(s)
Sit. Situation
Str. Strategy
Sub. Subject
T1 The First Time
T2 The Second Time
U Utterance
xii
V Verb
VSVO Verb- Subject- Verb- Object
xiii
List of Appendices
No. Subject Page
1 Letters to Jury Members and Native English Speakers 128
2 The Test 131
3 The Jury of Experts 148

4 The Statistical Method 150
xiv
١
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 The Problem
One of the most fascinating properties of the human language system or
perhaps of human cognition in general, is that language users are able to deduce
extra meaning from utterances that cannot be traced back to the meaning of the
words that made up the utterance. Without this ability, our daily human
communication would be very difficult, if not impossible. In addition, language
performs various functions. One of these functions expresses wants, needs or
desires to do or not to do something. 'Desire' is a significant factor which
characterizes the speech act of prohibition. Prohibition can be defined as the
speaker's desire to prevent someone from doing something (Allan, 1986: 199,
A). The following examples manifest prohibition.
1. Don’t be so talkative.
2. You must not tell lies.
As far as learners of a foreign language are concerned, their performance in
the target language is influenced by various pragmatic and linguistic factors
such as the cultural differences and language interference (James,1983: 137).
As regards Iraqi learners of English, the use of the speech act of prohibition has
not been dealt with in detail yet. We are still unaware of the learners' abilities in
this regard. As a result, there is a need to answer the following questions:
1. To what extent can Iraqi learners of English recognize and issue the
speech act of prohibition when it is realized by different linguistic
expressions?
2. What type of strategy do they adopt to realize the speech act of
prohibition?
٢
1.2 Aims of the study

The study aims at:
1. Identifying the ability of Iraqi EFL learners to distinguish between the speech
act of prohibition and other related acts, particularly speech acts of
(commanding, advising, warning, requesting and threatening) when these are
expressed by similar linguistic devices in a number of situations.
2. Identifying the most common strategies adopted by Iraqi EFL learners of
English as a foreign language for issuing the speech act of prohibition in certain
situations.
1.3 Hypotheses
It is hypothesized that:
1. Iraqi EFL learners recognize explicit prohibitive expressions better than
implicit ones.
2. Such learners use explicit utterances to issue the speech act of prohibition
better than implicit ones.
3. Iraqi EFL learners show a greater tendency towards using a particular
prohibition strategy than others.
4. They also misinterpret prohibition with other relevant speech acts at the
recognition level particularly commanding, advising, warning, requesting and
threatening.
1.4 Procedure
1. A survey of the literature about the speech act of prohibition and related
speech acts is carried out.
2. Out of the theoretical survey, a model is adopted for the analysis of the
speech act of prohibition's strategies, and another model is adopted for building
up the situations of the test.
3. A sample of Iraqi EFL learners is involved in a form of a two- part test to
collect data about the following:
٣
a) The learners' ability to recognize the speech act of prohibition from other
related ones when choices are given.
b) The most common types of strategy adopted by the learners for issuing the
speech act of prohibition according to certain situations.
4. A comparison between the performance of the learners at the production level
in Part 2 of the test and that of a control group of native English speakers is
carried out.
5. Finding out the results and stating recommendations and suggestions for
further studies.
1.5 Limits of the study
The study will abide to the following limitations:
1. The present study focuses only on the speech act of prohibition and other
related speech acts share the speech act of prohibition in some features. These
acts are familiar to the learners, the learners know about the speech acts in their
pre-university stage study as well as in their undergraduate courses.
2. For the purpose of this study two samples will involve. The first sample will
comprise 100 EFL learners undergraduate fourth-year students chosen
randomly from the Department of English / College of Education / University
of Kerbala during the academic year 2011 – 2012. The second sample of the
control group will comprise ten native speakers of English who are employees
in British Embassy in Baghdad / Iraq. They all have bachelor degrees in
different specializations and speak BBC accent.
1.6 Value of the study
It is hoped that this study will be of value to those interested in studying
the pragmatic performance of EFL learners. More importantly, the findings of
the study are expected to be of some pedagogic significance for syllabus
designers and teachers. The study is also hoped to reveal some aspects of
language which are relevant to and useful for the studies of second language
learning.
٤
Chapter Two
Speech Act of Prohibition: A Theoretical Background
2.1 Introduction
Prohibition is considered as one of the subgroups of speech act directives. It
is used to express the speaker's desire to prohibit someone from doing
something or to stop someone from doing some action (Allan, 1986: 199, A). In
this chapter, the present study makes its appeal to tackle prohibition from a
purely pragmatic perspective represented by the employment of: speech act of
prohibition, strategies that are used to express prohibition, and the relationship
between prohibition and politeness, Intonation and Stress.
2.2. The Logic of Speech Act
Speech Act Theory (henceforth SAT) was originally developed by the
British philosopher John Langshaw Austin in the 1930s and expounded in a
series of lectures that he gave at Harvard University in 1955. These were
developed in 1962 in a book entitled How to Do Things with Words (Finch,
2005:171). It is worth mentioning that Austin, in the sixties, (1962) was the first
to draw the attention to utterances by which the speaker does not only say
something, but also perform something. He drew a distinction between
constative and performative utterances. Constative utterances are statements;
their function is to describe some events, processes or state of affairs, while
performative utterances have no truth value; they are used to do something
rather than say that something is or is not the case, e.g.,
1. I name this ship Liberate.
2. I advise you to stop smoking.
These sentences would be uttered to perform particular kinds of acts because
the speaker does not only say something but also performs it (Lyons, 1977:
726). Austin (1962: 6) calls the above utterances "performatives" since they do
not describe something but they perform an action. Utterances of this type stand
٥
in contrast with the descriptive statements - for instance ' Snow is white ', which
he calls constatives - that are either true or false. For him (Austin, 1962: 6-14),
performatives are either happy (felicitous) or unhappy (infelicitous), while
constatives are verified according to whether they are true or false, for example:
3. I give and bequeath my watch to my brother.
4. I bet you six pence it will rain tomorrow.
5. I advise you to see a doctor.
These kinds of utterances are called 'performatives' since the speaker is not
mentioning some facts, but he is performing the acts of bequest, wager and
advice respectively. Then, Austin mentions that to consider all utterances
whether constatives or performatives as kinds of SAs on the basis that they all
have saying and doing elements. In the this regard, Searle (1972: 18) defines
SA as the '' function of the meaning of the sentence'' in the utterance of which it
is performed.
Later, the term SA has become to be basically connected with one of its
subcomponents, namely, illocutionary act. Van Dijk (1977: 195) affirms that
the term SA refers more specifically to the illocutionary act when
accomplishing some specific social act, e.g., making a promise, giving advice,
etc.. Leech and Short (1981: 290) illustrate that SA is an important concept
which relates utterance meaning to context. Palmer (1981: 162) prefers to
assign a more specific meaning to the term " speech act " and therefore he
refers to speech acts as "the classification of utterances in terms of promises ,
warning, etc."
Finch (2005: 171) illustrates that the action performed by producing an
utterance consists of three related acts: a locutionary act, an illocutionary act,
and a perlocutionary act. A locutionary act refers to the act of saying something
that makes sense in the language. It follows the grammatical rules of language.
An illocutionary act is one that is performed through the medium of language:
stating, warning, wishing, promising, and so on. And finally, a perlocutionary
٦
act is the effect the illocutionary act has on the listener: such as persuading,
convincing, deterring, misleading, surprising, and so forth. Coulthard (1985:
18) states that in speaking, one has no option of performing one or other of
these acts; one usually performs all the three acts simultaneously, but it is useful
for analytic purposes to distinguish between them. The illocutionary act of an
utterance is to be expressed in terms of what Austin calls ' happiness' or
'felicity' conditions, rather than in terms of truth and falsehood.
Searle (1975), cited in Scaruffi (1998: 4), classifies speech acts in several
categories including "directive acts", "assertive acts", "permissive acts", and
"prohibitive acts". To Searle, illocutionary acts performed by a speaker when
s/he utters a sentence with certain intention (e.g. statements, questions,
commands, promises), are the minimal units of human communication. An
illocutionary act consists of an illocutionary force (e.g. statements, questions,
commands, promises) and a propositional content (what it says).
Allan (1998: 3) illustrates the above relation between the illocutionary act
and the illocutionary force by mentioning "in utterance U, speaker performs an
Illocutionary Act in using a particular locution, such that U has the
Illocutionary Force of a statement, a confirmation, a denial, a prediction, a
promise, a request, and so forth". Moreover, he says that an utterance has more
than one illocutionary force: but many utterances have only one message to
convey and particularly, this illocutionary force is "the illocutionary point".
2.2.1 Classifications of Speech Acts
Austin (1962: 151-161) distinguishes five classes of utterances according to
their illocutionary force:
1- Verdictives: "they consist in the delivering of a finding, official or unofficial,
upon evidence or reason as to value or fact, so far as these are
distinguishable".
۷
2- Exercitives: " an exercitive is the giving of a decision in favour of/ or against

a certain course of action, or advocacy of it ".
3- Commissives: "the whole point of a commissive is to commit the speaker to a
certain course of action".
4- Behabitives: "they include the notion of reaction to other people’s behaviour
and fortunes and of attitudes and expressions of attitudes to someone else’s
past conduct or imminent conduct".
5- Expositives: "they are used in acts of exposition involving the expounding of
views, the conducting of arguments and clarifying of usages and of
references".
Searle (1977: 32-33) criticizes Austin's classification as being based on
performative verbs only. Mey (1993: 162) mentions that Searle presents his
classification (1977) in which he revises and re-classifies SAs according to a
certain theory. Searle introduces his classification according to certain
principles that are related to a general theory of speech act.
Searle (1979: 12) states that there are five basic kinds of actions that one can
perform in speaking by means of the following five utterances:
1- Representatives/ assertives: They commit the speaker to the truth of the

expressed proposition, e.g., claiming, stating…etc.
2- Directives: They are intended to produce some effect through action by the
hearer. They express what the speaker wants, e.g., ordering, commanding,
requesting…etc.
3- Commissives: They commit the speaker to some future course of actions, e.g.,
promising, swearing…etc.
4- Expressives: They have the function of expressing or making known, the
speaker’s psychological attitude towards a state of affairs which the illocution
presupposes, e.g., thanking, apologizing…etc.
۸
5- Declaratives: They are acts which in their uttering a state of affairs comes into
being e.g., naming, declaring…etc..
A third approach to the classification of speech acts which is important to

distinguish is that of Bach and Harnish (1979: 42-51) who identify six classes
dividing Searle’s declaratives into "effectives" which effect changes in
institutional states of affairs; and "verdictives" which have official binding
import in the context of the institution for which they are made. Declaratives
are different from the other classes of Bach and Harnishs' interpersonal acts.
Allan (1998: 7) asserts that Bach and Harnishs' interpersonal acts include
assertive, directive, commissives, and expressives, typically directed at the
individual.
2.2.2 Felicity Conditions (FCs)
Austin's distinction (1962: 14-15) between constative utterances and
performatives leads him to propose certain FCs for the performative utterances
to be successful. These conditions can be illustrated as follows:
a. (i) There must be a conventional procedure having a conventional effect
(e.g., wedding, declaring war, betting ….. etc.)
(ii) The circumstances and persons must be appropriate as specified in the
procedure (e.g., wedding: priest + bride + bridegroom + witnesses).
b. The procedure must be executed correctly (e.g., the right words) and
completely (e.g., bet).
c. Often, the persons must have the requisite thoughts, feelings, and intentions,
as specified in the procedure.
d. If consequent conduct is specified, then the relevant parties must do so.
If any of these conditions is violated, the performative will be unhappy
(infelicitous).
Austin's felicity conditions belong to certain conventional acts, ritual or
archetypal performatives such as naming a ship and declaring war which can be
۹
achieved by the uttering of certain words by appropriate people in appropriate

circumstances. Thus, they cannot be used for evaluating other types of
performatives, e.g.,
6. I warn you that I'll be there.

or merely
7. I'll be there. (As a warning in ordinary language situations).
Searle (1971: 40) develops Austin's felicity conditions and reclassifies them
into four kinds as follows:
1- Propositional content conditions: They specify restrictions on what can
be expressed in the proposition of a sentence.
2- Preparatory conditions: They are related to whether the person
performing a speech act has the authority to do so.
3- Sincerity conditions: They specify the required beliefs, intentions and
desires of the speaker as they are expressed in the performance of an
illocutionary act.
4- Essential conditions: They are the constitutive rules that determine the
type of illocutionary act, i.e., they are related to the way the speaker is
committed to a certain kind of belief or behaviour [Searle (1969); cited in
Al-Sulaimaan, (1997: 27-8) ; Lyons (1977: 733-4)].
According to Hurford and Heasley (1983: 25), felicity conditions are "the
conditions that must be fulfilled in the situation in which the act is carried out if
the act is to be said to be carried out properly or felicitously". In this respect,
Yule (1996: 50) illustrates that to recognize the performance of a speech act as
intended, there are certain expected or appropriate circumstances, which are
known as 'felicity conditions' (FCs). To elaborate the meaning of felicity
conditions, he mentions that the performance will be infelicitous (inappropriate),
as in the example below, if the speaker is not a specific person in a special
context (in this case, a judge in a courtroom).
۱۰
8. I sentence you to six months in prison.
Similarly, Crystal (2003: 178) defines felicity conditions as a "term used in

the theory of SAs to refer to the criteria which must be satisfied if the SA is to
achieve its purpose".
What has been mentioned earlier reveals some kinds of similar opinions
concerning the definition of FCs of Austin (1962: 14-15), Searle (1971: 40),
Hurford and Heasley (1983: 25), Yule (1996: 50), and Crystal (2003: 187)
despite the different perspectives they adopt.
2.2.3 Speech Acts and Speech Events
Yule (1996: 47-48) emphasizes the importance of SA event, stating that
actions performed via utterances are generally called SAs and such labels as
apology , complaint , compliment , invitation , promise , or request are
commonly given for such acts. Such descriptive terms for different kinds of
SAs apply to the speaker's communicative intention in producing an utterance.
The speaker normally expects that his/her communicative intention will be
recognized by the hearer. Both speaker and hearer are usually helped in this
process by the circumstances surrounding the utterance. These circumstances,
including other utterances, are called the speech events. In many ways, Yule
adds that it is the nature of the speech event that determines the interpretation of
an utterance when performing a particular SA. For instance,
On a wintry day, the speaker reaches for a cup of tea, believing that it has
been freshly made, takes a sip, and produces the utterance in (9). It is likely to
be interpreted as a complaint.
9. This tea is really cold.
Changing the circumstances to a really hot summer's day with the speaker being
given a glass of iced tea by the hearer, taking a sip and producing the utterance
in (9), it is likely to be interpreted as praise.
۱۱
If the same utterance can be interpreted as two different kinds of SA,

obviously, no simple one utterance to one action correspondence will be
possible. It also means that there is more to the interpretation of a SA than can
be found in the utterance alone (Yule, 1996: 47-48).
2.2.4 Direct and Indirect Speech Acts
One of the contributions of Searle (1975: 60) is the distinction between
direct and indirect SAs, depending on the recognition of the intended
perlocutionary effect of an utterance on a particular occasion. Indirect SAs are
''cases in which one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of
performing another''. The interesting issue in indirect SAs is how one can mean
more than what one says. The indirect SAs are utterances in which the speaker's
intended meaning is different from the literal meaning. Moreover, in the case of
direct SAs, the addresser intends to produce a certain illocutionary effect by
getting the addressee to recognize his/her intention by virtue of the addressee's
knowledge of the rules that govern the utterance, whereas in the case of indirect
SAs, the addresser means more than the force conventionally associated with
that utterance, e.g.,
10. Can you pass the salt?
Although this utterance is conventionally associated with the force of asking a
question about the addressee's ability to do something, the addresser may
indirectly use it to mean a request to pass the salt.
However, indirect SAs suggest a serious problem of communication when it
is difficult for the hearer to recognize the speaker's intention if it is not
conventionally expressed in the utterance. Within this context, Searle
(1975: 61) states that the problem posed by indirect SAs is the problem of how
it is possible for the speaker to say something and mean something else. It is
argued that meaning is related partly with the intention of producing the hearer's
understanding. On the other hand, a large part of that problem is related to the
۱۲
possibility of the hearer to understand the indirect SA when the sentence, he

hears and understands, means something else.
As a solution for the problem, Searle (1975: 61) believes that in indirect
SAs, the speaker can communicate to the hearer by means of relying on their
mutually shared background information, both linguistic and extra-linguistic,
together with the general powers of rationality and hearer's inference.
Yule (1996: 54) points out that a different approach to distinguish types of
SAs can be made on the basis of sentence structure. In English, a simple
structural distinction between three general types of SAs is provided by the
three basic sentence types. According to Fig. (1) below, there is an obvious
relationship between the three structural forms (declarative, interrogative,
imperative) and the three general communicative functions (statement,
question, command / request).
Construction Illocutionary force
declarative statement
11. (a). You wear a seat belt.
interrogative question
(b). Do you wear a seat belt?
Imperative command
(c).Wear a seat belt!
Fig. (1): Sentence Types and Communicative Functions
Whenever there is a direct relationship between a structure and a function,

there is a direct SA but whenever there is an indirect relationship between a
structure and a function, there is an indirect SA. Thus, a declarative used to
make a statement is a direct SA, but a declarative used to make other SAs is an
indirect SA. In other words, a statement achieved by a declarative is a direct SA
because it is the usual function associated with the declarative while any other
۱۳
SA issued by the declarative is an indirect SA because it is not usually

associated with the declarative. In (12) below, for instance, the utterance in
(12 .a) is a declarative. When it is used to make a statement, as paraphrased in
(12.b), it is functioning as a direct SA. When it is used to make a command /
request, as paraphrased in (12.c), it is functioning as an indirect SA.
12.
a. It's cold outside.
b. I hereby tell you about the weather.
c. I hereby request of you that you close the door (Yule, 1996: 55).
The majority of acts in everyday conversation, as Crystal (1998: 121) argues,
are indirect and that the most direct way is to use the imperative construction
(Shut the door), but this would be inappropriate in many everyday situations,
too abrupt or rude, perhaps. Alternative constructions emphasize such factors as
the hearer's ability or desire to perform the action, or the speaker's reasons for
having the action done. These include the following:
13. a. I'd be grateful if you'd shut the door.
b. Could you shut the door?
c. Would you mind shutting the door?
d. I’d help to have the door shut.
e. It is getting cold in here.
In fact, indirect SAs are attributed to the requirement of polite behaviour in
linguistic communication. Searle (1975: 64) argues that politeness is the chief
motivation for indirectness. Similarly, Stubbs (1983: 153) thinks that in indirect
SAs, the illocutionary force of an utterance is overlaid by markers of mitigation
or politeness. In such utterances, according to Yule (2010: 134), which include
two illocutionary forces, the direct speech act is usually obtained via a sentence
- type which is usually associated with it.
James (1983: 128) believes that the indirect speech acts are highly context
dependent, in most cases, the intended meaning is the non – literal one. They
۱٤
provide a useful means of maintaining conversation without endangering the

relations among the interlocutors.
Three contextual factors that are crucial for the choice of direct/indirect
speech acts, and the maintenance of the relationship between the speaker and
hearer includes status (i.e. superiority, equality, and inferiority of position),
distance (i.e. familiarity and unfamiliarity), and power (i.e. solidarity or non-
solidarity) (Brown and Levinson, 1979: 76-89); Leech, 1983: 100-107). These
three important factors will be taken into consideration in the selection of the
situations of the test items for this study.
2.3 The Speech Act of Prohibition
2.3.1 The Concept of Prohibition
Hudson (1996: 109) states that SA is a particular method to the functional
classification of speech and the different functions to be formulated in terms of
a general theory of social activity. For Crystal (2003: 427), the term of SA
refers to a theory which analyzes the role of utterances in relation to the
behaviour of speaker and hearer in interpersonal communication. It is not an act
of speech (in the sense of parole), but a communicative activity.
Griffiths (2006: 148) illustrates that Searle, in his elaboration of work by
Austin, established speech acts. The point of talking, typing, or writing to other
people is stating or passing on facts that will be new to the addressees.
However, stating is actually an important function of language, but it is not the
only one. It is known from what has been mentioned earlier that there are
straightforward, almost non-technical ways of describing people's linguistic
interaction: She's giving the players a warning; They're greeting the visitors;
That man is telling them what be saw. These basic units of linguistic
interaction- such as giving a warning to, greeting, telling what – (the act, not the
labels) are called "speech acts".
۱٥
Allan (1986: 199, A) defines prohibition as the speaker's desire to prevent

someone from doing something. This speech act differs from other ones, for
instance, commanding, threatening, warning, requesting, advising in that the
cost of the beneficence is judged to be on the part of speaker (S). Also, in
prohibition, there is a superior authority for speaker over hearer (H) to do action
(A). Another significant point about prohibition is that H has no space of
optionality to do or not to do A.
For Crowther (1995: 926), prohibition is '' the action of forbidding something
or the state of being forbidden". The word prohibition according to Merriam-
Webster Reference (2010) refers to "the act of prohibiting by authority, to an
order to restrain or stop, and when it is often capitalized the word prohibition is
used to indicate the forbidding by law of the manufacture, transportation, and
so on".
Leech and Svartvik (1994: 165) say that prohibition is the negation of
permission ('He/she is not allowed to do something'). 'Can' and 'may'
(='permission') and 'must' (='obligation') can all have the meaning of
'prohibition' with a negative:
[A] Can the children play here?
[B] No, I'm afraid they can't ('they're not allowed to') – it's against the rules
(ibid).
In the current study, the researcher follows Allan's definition of the concept
of prohibition which refers to the speaker's desire to prohibit someone from
doing something.
2.3.2 Felicity Conditions of Prohibition
As it is mentioned earlier in (2.2.2), felicity conditions refer to those
conditions which are used in the theory of SAs to refer to the ''criteria which
must be satisfied if the speech act achieves its purpose'' (Crystal, 2003: 178). In
addition, it is stated that Allan (1998: 7) asserts that Bach and Harnishs'
۱٦
interpersonal acts include assertives, directives, commissives, and expressives,

typically directed at the individual. He (ibid: 192) adds that interpersonal acts
are defined on the basis of two felicity conditions as proposed by Bach and
Harnish (1979): a preparatory condition [P] which invokes the value, and a
sincerity condition [S]. The third element in the definition is the illocutionary
intention [I], which represents speaker’s reflexive intention that a hearer should
recognize that in uttering utterance, a speaker intends to have the hearer
recognize his particular illocution.
Bach and Harnish (1979: 47) believe that directives consisting of prohibition
"manifest the speaker’s intention (desire, wish) that his utterance or the attitude
it expresses be taken as a reason for the hearer to act".
Furthermore, they classify directives into six sub-divisions: requestives,
questions, requirements, prohibitives, permissives, and advisories.
Table (1)
Bach and Harnishs' Classification of Speech Acts
Requestives Questions Requirements Prohibitives Permissives Advisories

Ask Ask Bid Enjoin Agree to Admonish
Beg Inquire Charge Forbid Allow Advise
Beseech Interrogate Command Prohibit Authorize Counsel
Implore Query Dictate Proscribe Blees Propose
Invite Question Direct Restrict Consentto Urge
Insist Quiz Enjoin Dismiss Recommend
Petition Instruct Excuse Suggest
Plead Order Exempt Warn
Request Prescribe Forgive
Solicit Require Grant
Summon License
Tell Pardon
Urge Release
Supplicate Sanction
Pray
۱۷
As far as prohibitive acts are concerned, Bach and Harnish (1979: 47) and
Allan (1986: 199, B) mention that to make prohibitive acts felicitous, they
should meet a number of felicity conditions which can be illustrated in the
following table.
Table (2)
Felicity Conditions for Prohibitive Acts (Allan, 1998: 10)
The Formulation of the Condition

Types of Condition
in the case of Prohibition
The propositional condition The speaker (S) prohibits the hearer
(H) from doing act (A)
The Preparatory Condition S has reason to believe that H should
not do A
The Sincerity Condition S wants H not to do A
Illocutionary intention S reflexively intends U to be
recognized as a requirement on H not
to do A
A comparison of the different classifications of the SAs is illustrated

below:
Table (3)
Comparison of Different Classifications of Speech Acts (Allan: ibid)
Austin Searle Bach and Harnish

Expositives Representatives Assertives
(Assertives)
Commissives Commissives Commissives
Behabitives Expressives Acknowledgments
Exercitives Directives Directives
Verdictives Declaratives Verdictives
Effectives
۱۸
The comparison above illustrates some sorts of similarity in the speech act
classification of Austin (1962), Searle (1975), and Bach and Harnish (1979) in
spite of the different views they adopt (Allan, 1998: 10).
2.4 Kinds of Prohibition
Haverkate (1979: 39) classifies prohibition into two types: Cessative and
preventive.
2.4.1 Cessative Prohibition
This is the first type of prohibition in which the speaker "X" orders the hearer
"Y" at coding time "T1", at which it is the case that "Y" is laughing, to
transform at reference "T2" the world in which this state of affairs holds, into
another world in which it is no longer the case that "Y" is laughing. This
indicates prohibition is used to transform a world in which a certain state of
affairs holds into a world in which the state of affairs does not hold (ibid).
14. Don’t laugh!
Davies (1986: 70) and Spring (1999: 1-2) agree with the view which states in
prohibition "negative imperative" is used by the speaker to prohibit the
addressee from doing something he is apparently about to do or to tell him to
stop doing something he has already begun doing.
Cessative prohibitions, in their turn, can be paraphrased in a number of ways.
Thus,
15. Don’t talk!
can be paraphrased as in:
16. Don’t keep talking!
or
17. Stop talking!
Sentences (16) and (17) semantically serve the purpose of focusing on the
execution-termination point of the action to be performed by the hearer
(Haverkate, 1979: 41). Besides, he clarifies the differences between the above
۱۹
paraphrases and imperative prohibition such as (15) by using the parameter of

markedness. The paraphrases, then, are the marked member while the
imperative prohibition is the unmarked one of the opposition.
Furthermore, there are some adverbs such as (any more, so much) which
typically appear in cessative prohibition sentences. Their use presupposes that
the action described by the proposition is already being performed. This occurs
in,
18. Don’t shout any more!
19. Don’t shout so much! (Haverkate, 1979: 41).
2.4.2 Preventive Prohibition
This is the second type of prohibition and it is called so because it contains
impositive speech acts performed in order to prevent a certain state of affairs
from being brought about. The following example
20. Do not tell him what happened when he comes!
expresses a preventive prohibition issued by "X" at "T1", at which it is assumed
by "X" that the telling referred to has not taken place, in order to get "Y" at
reference time "T2" to refrain from transforming the world in which the telling
has not taken place into another world in which it has taken place. In other
words, the above sentence expresses a preventive prohibition in which the
speaker prohibits the hearer from transforming the world in which the telling
has not taken place into another world in which it has taken place
(Haverkate, 1979: 39).
The preventive prohibition can be paraphrased by an embedded clause
expressing the original prohibition and a main clause containing the verb (" to
avoid")
21. Avoid talking with her.
A reinforcing variant of the following example
22. Don’t tell him what happened when he comes!
۲۰
would be:
23. Avoid telling him what happened when he comes! (ibid: 40)
Furthermore, Haverkate (1979: 39) observes that preventive prohibitions are
related to warnings. The connection can be best formulated in terms of
markedness in which preventive prohibition is the unmarked member of the
opposition, and warning the marked one. It is significant to mention that the
marker characterizing warning is reflected by the implicit reference to the
sanctions the speaker may apply in case the hearer disregards the prohibition.
Thus, warnings have a stronger illocutionary force than preventive prohibitions.
The following sentence
24. I warn you not to tell him what happened when he comes.
is considered to be a marked paraphrasis of (22) (ibid).
In order to fix the difference between cessative sentences and preventive
sentences concerning the fillers of the predicate slot, Haverkate (ibid: 42) says
that in cessative sentences, however, the natural candidates for filling the
predicate slot would be imperfect verbs, since the prohibition involved serves
the purpose of interrupting an action being performed during a period which in
principle may be of indefinite. In preventive sentences the predicate slot may be
filled by both perfective and imperfective verbs.
2.5 Strategies of Expressing Prohibition
2.5.1 Prohibitive Performative Sentence
Jespersen (2007: 276) explains that obligation which includes prohibition can
be issued explicitly as well as implicitly. Thus, it is interesting to distinguish
between two types of prohibitive performative sentence.
Austin, (1963: 22) mentions that the constative sentence has the property of
being true or false. The performative sentence, by contrast, can never be either:
it has its own special job, it is used to perform an action. He manifests that
۲۱
"to issue such an action is to perform the action … an action, perhaps, which
one scarcely could perform, at least with so much precision, in any other way."
2.5.1.1 Str. 1: Explicit Prohibitive Performative Sentence
The major significant constituent of an explicitly performative clause is the
performative verb. In this regard, Perkins (1983: 945) affirms that there are
many verbs which could be included under the heading of "performative verbs",
i.e. verbs that can be used to perform an act rather than merely describe or state
an act.
Consequently, Allan (1986: 199, B) argues that the verb spells out the
illocutionary force of the performative clause effectively because the meaning
of the performative verb presents the essence of the illocution, e.g.
"I promise", "I forbid", "I prohibit", etc.
Similarly, Haverkate (1979: 166) says that:
Performative sentences are compound sentences characterized by a
lexical expression of the illocutionary act the speaker performs in uttering
them. This is due to the fact that the slot of the main predicate is filled by a verb
that belongs to the class of illocutionary - function indicating devices. We can
also formulate this by saying that performative sentences contain a lexical
reference to the essential rule, which defines the character of the illocutionary
act involved.
Moreover, Haverkate (1979: 170) thinks that the only specific lexical item
that can be used in the explicit prohibitive performative sentences is the verb
"prohibit". According to Fraser (1975: 192), the prohibitive performative verbs
like "forbid" and "prohibit" belong to the "act of requesting", i.e. verbs
expressing "the speaker’s desire for the hearer to bring about the state of
affairs expressed in the proposition" and to the "act of exercising authority"
which indicates "the speaker’s proposal to create a new state of affairs by
exercising certain rights or powers".
۲۲
Searle and Vanderveken (1985: 198) state that directives include such
illocutionary verbs as forbid, prohibit and enjoin. They (ibid: 202) illustrate the
semantic analysis of English illocutionary verbs as forbid, prohibit, enjoin by
mentioning that '' forbid'' just means ''order not''. Forbidding is the
propositional negation of ordering. ''Forbid'' and ''prohibit'' differ only in that
prohibitions are more likely to be standing orders. They forbid something over a
long period of time, as in ''prohibition''. Thus, 11 prohibit 11 is 11 forbid 11 (i.e. [ 11 ]
means the function that assigns to each illocutionary verb the force or type of
speech act that it names) with an additional propositional content condition
concerning time. Moreover, '' to enjoin '' is to prohibit or forbid by some formal
or official means. This indicates the notion of an injunction is a legal
prohibition. An injunction is a prohibition or forbidding that is issued by a court
of law or delivered in some other authoritative formal or official manner. An
injunction can be either temporary or permanent.
Allan (1998: 4) agrees with Lyons (1977: 728) in stating that an explicit
performative sentence in English cannot be interrogative, imperative or
subjunctive but rather a declarative sentence to denote an actualization of the
illocutionary act.
25. I forbid you to open that room.
Allan (1986: 206, B) confirms that a declarative sentence can be used in
performing any subcategory of speech act including prohibition. This is done
either through clauses containing a performative verb, or through the meaning
of the predicates in such sentences as the following:
26. I forbid you to speak to him.
Additionally, Allan (1998: 5) sees that in English a performative verb must be
in the present tense because the illocutionary act is defined at the moment of
utterance.
27. I prevent you to go out.
۲۳
At this point, a performative may occur in either the simple or progressive

aspects. To Allan (ibid), a performative verb normally occurs in the simple
present. However, there are certain occasions where a performative may occur
in the progressive aspect.
28. I am forbidding you to open that room.
29. I forbid you to open that room.
Allan remarks that (29) has the illocutionary force of prohibition, saying that
the grounds for claiming it to be a statement about a prohibition are no stronger
than the grounds for claiming the same about (30) in the below example (ibid).
2.5.1.2 Str. 2: Implicit Prohibitive Performative Sentence
Implicit performatives, in contrast to explicit ones, do not contain an
expression naming the act. They are described by using the three basic sentence
types in English. In this respect, Levinson (1983: 244) states that it is possible
to say that sentences in the imperative, interrogative or declarative, and perhaps
other kinds of sentence format are used to construct implicit performatives.
Palmer (1981: 162) points out that imperative sentence such as,
30. Go !
which has the meaning
31. I order you to go.
which seem to be opposite to
32. Don’t go !
33. I forbid you to go.
are problematic since there is no an obvious indication of the kind of the speech
act involved, i.e. it is not specific in meaning as the explicit one. Implicit
prohibitives are direct prohibitions that are carried out by ways of imperative
sentences. The following sentence:
34. Don’t touch these wet drawings!
۲٤
is said to have the function of prohibition. One can set the following paraphrase
of the above sentence:
35. I forbid you to touch these wet drawings (ibid).
In its original form, the performative analysis in transformational grammar,
as mentioned by Ross (1970: 261), cited in Allan (1986: 253, B), postulates that
"every deep structure contains one and only one performative as its highest
clause".
However, sentence (30) would then take the following deep structure:
NP VP
V (NP) ∑
I [+ performative] you
Fig. (2): The Deep Structure of Sentence (30)
To comment on the above diagram, Allan (ibid) thinks that the

illocutionary force was thought to be a property of sentences rather than
utterances, and says that Ross proposed that every sentence has a deep structure
in which the initial sentence symbol ''∑'' has for its immediate constituents a
subject NP dominating the first person pronoun ''I'' representing the speaker
and a verb phrase consisting of a performative verb whose object is a
complement sentence containing the next nonperformative clause down, and
perhaps an indirect object pronoun "you" representing the hearer.
۲٥
2.5.2 Str. 3: Imperative

Perlumtter and Soames (1979: 15) explain that the imperative sentence
appears without subject as contrary to other English sentences as in:
36. Close the door.
37. Read the instruction.
Quirk et al. (1985: 827) state that "directives typically take the form of an
imperative sentence". They say that the main distinction between an imperative
sentence and a declarative sentence is that the former generally has no subject
and has either a main verb in the base form or, less commonly, an auxiliary in
the base form followed by the appropriate form of the main verb.
38. Open the door.
39. Be guided by what I say.
Quirk et al. (1985: 828) point out that the omitted subject is the second
person pronoun ''you'', and that the pronoun ''you'', if it occurs, can be the
subject of the following tag question:
40. Be quiet, will you?
Subjects of the imperative can also be third person. They also mention that
third person subjects are possible:
41. Nobody move.
42. Men in the front row take one step forward (ibid: 829).
Allan ( 1986: 205, B) asserts what has been said by Quirk et al. (1985: 827)
by saying that a prohibitive sentence is considered as one of the sub- classes of
the speech act category of directives. He (ibid: 157) explains that directives
include ( imperatives, interrogatives, and requests) have compliance value.
Allan (ibid) illustrates that imperatives frame requirements and prohibitions
respectively in the following examples:
43. Tell me your name. [Requirement]
44. Keep out. [Prohibition]
۲٦
Brinton (2000: 116) mentions that the imperative is a subclass of the

subjunctive which expresses direct commands. In English the imperative has a
special syntactic form: it is a subjectless sentence containing a bare form of the
verb, in the following examples the imperative is addressed to a second person
''you'' as in:
45. Go!
46. Don’t disturb me!
Jespersen (2007: 295) states that the imperative ''let'', is extensively used in
desires and exhortation; it serves to bring about the word-order VSV(O)
respectively:
47. Let us go !
48. Let John take the chair.
Concerning the 'let' imperative construction, Quirk et al. (1985: 830)
explain that '' 'let' is no more than an introductory particle'' and that this
construction ''should be kept separate from the ordinary 2nd person imperative
of 'let' as a transitive verb''.
2.5.3 Str. 4: Negative Imperative
Zandvoort (1965: 208) denotes that syntactically prohibition is a negative
imperative sentence usually with initial ''do not'' followed by an infinitive
without ''to''
49. Don’t shoot !
Geiring et al. (1987: 223) mention that negative imperative sentences
express prohibition in accordance with the speaker’s intent underlying requests.
50. Don’t drink alcohol and drive.
Binnick, (1991: 68-70) explains that the root meanings of "imperative" (cf.
imperatus) 'commanded'. Imperative can be used to fulfil some nonconstative
function, to perform some type of speech act other than declaration: the
imperative is used to command or request. The negative of imperative is used to
۲۷
express a prohibition. In other words, the imperative can be used to prevent an

action. It is simply a negative command, i.e. ''do not'' that is used before the
imperative to turn the command into a prohibition. In negative imperative
(prohibitive), ''do not'' is used plus a predicator.
51. Don't sing.
52. Don’t be so talkative. (second person prohibitive)
Brinton (2000: 210) states that in the formation of negative imperatives, do-
support is always required, even in the case of 'be'
53. Don’t open the window!
54. Don’t be so sad!
Eastwood (2002: 21) mentions that the basic use of the imperative is to give
orders, to get someone to do something. This indicates that the negative
imperative is used to order someone not to do something and the speaker
expects that the hearer will obey.
55. Don't tell anyone about this. [A boss (to an employee)]
Moreover, ''Do'' is used as an auxiliary with ''be'' in negative imperative
sentences, as Swan (2005, 80: 243) calls it, when we tell somebody not to do
something.
56. Don’t be silly!
Jespersen (2007: 103) asserts that ''with a negative imperative one has the
order VSVO'' as in:
57. Don’t you begin it!
2.5.3.1 Str. 5: Negative Imperative with Subject
The use of the negative imperative generally implies that any overt subject
must be placed after ''do not''. For instance, Onions and Miller (1971: 112) and
Geiring et al. (1987: 224) give examples similar to (48) and (52); they make no
reference to an alternative to the subject’s occurrence before ''do not'', nor do
۲۸
they discuss the possibility of subjects other than ''you'' and ''anybody/anyone''
in negative imperative.
58. Don’t you eat that ice cream.
59. Don’t anybody touch these wet paints. (Geiring et al., 1987: 224)
It is possible to make an appeal to the acceptability of an imperative subject
after ''do not'', as Huddleston (1971: 57-8) assumes that the position of ''do not''
depends on the length of the subject noun phrase. In addition, he suggests that
the position between ''do not'' and the lexical verbs can be occupied only by a
short noun phrase.
60. Don’t anybody move.
Contrary to Huddleston’s suggestion, Davies (1986: 93) claims that the
length does not seem to be an important factor in determining the position of
the subject relative to ''do not''. He gives very short noun phrases which seem to
be less acceptable in this position.
61.? Girls go into the hall, don’t boys move.
On the other hand, Davies (ibid: 98) thinks that the placement of imperative
subject before and after ''do not'' reflects differences of interpretation involving
the scope and focus of negation.
62. Don’t some of you talk to him.
63. Some of you don’t talk to him.
While (62) could be used to express an intention that none of the addresses talk,
by a speaker who suspects that some of them might do just that, (63) sounds
more like an instruction for just some but not all of them to adopt a certain
course of action, i.e., that of refraining from talking.
Swan (2005: 269) explains the importance of the word order in negative
imperatives with pronoun subjects as in:
64. Don't you believe it. (Not ''You don't believe it.'')
65. Don't anybody say a word. (Not "Anybody don't say a word.")
۲۹
2.5.3.2 Str.6: Negative Imperative with Tag Question

Quirk et al. (1985: 813) and Swan (2005: 269) state that negative imperatives
are seldom followed by tag question. The only type that seems possible is
"will you?" in the following sentence, with a falling tone on the tag:
66. Don’t make noise, will you?
Alternatively, ''can you?'' could be used:
67. Don’t make noise, can you?
Furthermore, they (ibid) mention that first person plural imperative may
take ''shall we?'' as a tag question:
68. Let’s not discuss it now, shall we?
It is worth mentioning that Allan (1986: 246, B) illustrates that negative
imperatives seem to be used only in instructions and to express prohibition. The
instructional tag ''will you'' is used as in the following examples:
69. Sit down, will you? [Instruction]
70. Don't get lost, will you? [ Prohibition]
To illustrate the above example, in (70), which is used to express
prohibition, Allan (1986: 246, B) says that "S proposes to H that H not do A
and asks that he agrees not to do A". However, he denotes that the hearer has
more freedom of refusal in others tag questions than is the case with ''will you?''
tagged imperatives.
2.5.4 Str. 7: Avoid + Gerund ( + ing )
Trask (1993: 118) states that gerund is a traditional name for the –ing form
of a verb in English when it serves as a verbal noun as in:
71. Swimming is good exercise.
As it is mentioned earlier in (2.4.2), preventive prohibition contains
impositive speech acts performed in order to prevent a certain state of affairs
from being brought about. Particularly, this type of strategy belongs to the
second type of prohibition which is entitled preventive prohibition (Haverkate,
1979: 39).
۳۰
Haverkate (ibid: 40) illustrates that preventive prohibition can be paraphrased

by an embedded clause expressing the original prohibition and a main clause
containing the verb "to avoid" :
72. Don't talk with Robert when he comes!
can be paraphrased into:
73. Avoid talking with Robert when he comes!
Swan (2005: 296) asserts that the verb "avoid" belongs to the category of
some verbs which can be followed only by – ing form ('gerund'), but not
normally an infinitive, e. g.,
74. Avoid swimming in deep water. (Not Avoid to swim in deep water)
As far as speech act of prohibition is concerned, this type of strategy can be
used to prevent someone from doing something (Haverkate, 1979: 38).
2.5.5 Str. 8: Be + Not + To + Infinitive
A number of grammarians such as Alexander et al. (1957: 159), Hornby
(1961: 203-4) and Thomson and Martinet (1986: 268) agreed upon the view
that prohibition can be carried out through another common construction which
is the negative verb ''be'' plus '' to + infinitive ''.
75. You are not to move.
76. You are not to come into my room without knocking.
On the other hand, Close (1975: 259) emphasizes that only situation or
context could tell us whether the sentence below,
77. This gate is not to be opened today.
refers to an official plan or to an instruction. That is it can be interpreted as
either:
(77a) Plans to have an opening ceremony have been cancelled or postponed,
or
(77b) People are forbidden to open it.

۳۱
2.5.6 Str. 9: Indirect Speech to Convey Prohibition

The indirect speech can be used to discover the function of an utterance.
Thomson and Martinet (1986: 269) define indirect speech by saying ''in indirect
speech we give the exact meaning of a remark or a speech, without necessarily
using the speaker's exact words'', for instance:
78. He said, 'I have lost my umbrella.'
can be reported as:
79. He said (that) he had lost his umbrella.
Leech (1989: 15) illustrates that language can perform different functions,
one of which is prohibition. He explains that an example like:
80. Don’t walk on the grass.
can be reported indirectly as:
81. Walking on the grass is prohibited.
Allen (1959: 263) and Thomas and Martient (1986: 269) remark that a
negative imperative is expressed by means of a negative infinitive.
82. Do not do it!
83. He asked me (you, him etc.) not to do it.
Similarly, Swan (2005: 280) states that ''negative infinitives are made by
putting 'not' before the infinitive. 'Do' is not used''.
84. Don’t worry.
85. It is important not to worry.
Thomas and Martinet (1986: 286) denote that 'Must' can be used for
permanent command/ prohibition and to express intention remains unchanged.
Thus,
86. He said, 'This door must be kept locked'
can be reported indirectly,
87. He said that that door must be kept locked.
۳۲
Another way to report negative command is to express it by ''must not''

(ibid: 287). Thus,
88. He said, 'you mustn't tell anyone'
can be paraphrased as:
89. He said that she mustn't tell anyone/that she wasn't to tell anyone, or
90. He told her not to tell anyone.

Besides, Hornby (1961: 204) states that prohibitions are often indicated by
means of brief announcement as:
91. No smoking!
92. No parking!
which can be reported as:
(91a) Smoking is not allowed.
(92a) Parking is prohibited between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.
2.5.7 Str. 10: Block Language to Express Prohibition:
Quirk et al. (1985: 845) mention that:
Block language appears in such functions like labels,
titles, newspaper headlines, headings, notices, and
advertisements. Simple block language messages are most
often nonsentences, consisting of a noun or noun phrase or
nominal clause in isolation; no verb is needed, because all
else necessary to the understanding of the message is
furnished by the context.
Prohibition on notice boards often takes the form of a nominal phrase
introduced by ''no'' (ibid: 1403).
93. No entry
94. No parking
Quirk et al. (ibid: 1066) assert that a gerund is used with an ordinary
determiner especially "no" in certain patterns to express prohibition.
95. No playing loud music.
96. No smoking.
۳۳
The other construction is "there" as a clause subject followed by "no" and a

gerundial clause as in:
97. There was no turning the other cheek.
which means,
98. No one turned the other cheek.
99. There was no shooting of prisoners (ibid).
which means,
100. No one shot prisoners.
They add that if there is no direct object or of-construction, the –ing
construction is ambiguous between the –ing clause and the –ing nominalization:
101. There was no smoking in the corridors.
can be interpreted as:
(101. a) Smoking was not allowed in the corridors.
or
(101.b) No one smoked in the corridors (Quirk et al., 1985: 1066).
Similarly, Frank (1972: 321) emphasizes that the negative determiner "no"
is used instead of "not" with certain types of gerundial phrases in public notices
like short prohibition against activities as in:
102. No smoking is allowed in school.
103. No loitering.
Thomson and Martinet (1986: 228) point out that the gerund has exactly the
same form as the present participle such as "running, speaking and working". In
addition, the gerund is used in short prohibition like:
104. No smoking.
105. No fishing.
But these cannot be followed by an object, so prohibitions involving an object
are usually expressed by an imperative:
106. Do not touch these wires.
107. Do not feed the lions (ibid).
۳٤
2.5.8 Modality to Express Prohibition

Hartmann and Stork (1976: 142) state that "'Modality' is the way in which a
speaker can express his attitude towards a situation in interpersonal
communication, usually realised in English by modal auxiliaries (mood) and/or
adverbials such as' possibly' or constructions like 'it is certain that …' ".
Semantically, modality is one of the most important features of English; a
great variety of meanings and attitudes may be conveyed through modalising
and thus making the semantic truth value of a given sentence more flexible
(Halliday, 2003: 249: 251).
Downing and Locke (2006: 384) state that "modality may be taken to
express a relation with reality, whereas non-modal utterance treats the process
as reality".
108. This restaurant may be good enough for them.
109. This restaurant is good enough for them.
The first sentence is clearly influenced by personal attitude of the speaker,
while the second one makes a clear categorical assertion.
Huddleston (1988: 75) gives different kinds of modality along with their
relation to different "degrees" of modality. Epistemic uses of modality are ones
that are derived from knowledge. According to him, the epistemic uses involve
implications concerning the speaker’s knowledge of the situation in question.
Deontic uses focus on necessity, obligation, prohibition and permission
whereas dynamic uses focus on the abilities, capabilities or the willingness of
the subject of the sentence.
Similarly, Lyons (1977: 452) realizes the distinction between epistemic,
deontic and dynamic uses of modality when he refers to the speaker' s opinion
or attitude towards the proposition that the sentence expresses or the situation
that the proposition describes. Further, Lyons (ibid: 793) thinks that epistemic
modality is concerned with matters of knowledge or belief. Unlike the
۳٥
epistemic kind, Lyons (ibid: 823) states that deontic modality is concerned
with the necessity or possibility of acts performed by morally responsible
agents. In contrast, dynamic modality is subject-oriented in the sense that it is
concerned with the ability or volition of the subject of the sentence, rather than
the opinions (epistemic) or attitude (deontic) of the speaker (and addressee).
Since prohibition belongs to deontic modality, a considerable description
will be given to it. Perkins (1983: 11) affirms that deontic modalities can be
defined in terms of social or institutional laws. These can be of two general
kinds: on the one hand are laws which are explicitly laid down by some legal
authority or institution and which define a set of rules of behaviour for some
specified social group; on the other hand are the usually less formal rules
relating to social status, according to which one person may be said to have
personal authority over another.
Lyons (1977: 826) explains that the deontic modality is seen as originally
developing from the "desiderative or instrumental function of language", to
express or indicate wants and desires and to get things done by imposing one’s
will on other agents. It is clear that these two functions are very closely
connected in the following examples:
110. It is wrong to tell lies.
is often interpreted as:
111. Don’t tell lies.
The difference between (110) and (111), as they would normally be understood,
is that (110) is a deonetic statement refers to the effect that the obligation exists;
and the word "wrong" in (110) specifies, in a fairly general way, the nature of
obligation, whereas (111) is a directive, the utterance of which creates, or brings
into existence, a certain obligation.
Brinton (2000, 115) says that mood is rather difficult to define, but it can be
considered as an indication of the speaker's attitude towards what he or she is
talking about, whether the event is considered fact (indicative) or nonfact
۳٦
(subjunctive, imperative). Nonfact encompasses a number of different degrees

of reality, including wishes, desires, requests, warnings, prohibitions,
commands, predictions, possibilities, and contrary-to-fact occurrences. In order
to distinguish between these two functions of language, Perkins (1983: 15)
provides a formal means of difference between the indicative and imperative
moods.
Both
112. The king is dead.
and
113. It is raining.
would typically be uttered to assert the truth of their respective propositions,
and,
114. Be reasonable!
115. Stop it!
would typically be uttered with the intention of bringing about the event
referred to in their propositional content. Thus (113) and (114) may be regarded
as "categorical" assertions while (115) and (116) as "categorical" directives.
Indeed, Holmberg (1979), as cited in Perkins (1983: 18), remarks that deontic
modality may be present in either an assertion or a directive. Whether a
sentence like:
is uttered as a negative command (i.e., "I order you not to tell lies") or an
assertion (i.e., "Moral honesty requires you not to tell lies"), it remains
deontically modal.
Following Fraser (1980: 342), some illocutionary acts can be effectively
performed by a type of sentence which is called "hedged performative". For
instance, to utter
117. I must forbid you from saying anything.
۳۷
may count as an act of forbidding, though the literal interpretation of this is only
a report of obligation.
Additionally, Fraser (1975: 187) points out that the hedged performative
sentence differs from the corresponding performative sentence in that it
involves a modal or a semi-modal.
118. I must forbid you from going out.
Fraser (ibid: 193) sees that 'must' is a strongly performative modal that
occurs most often with the largest number of verbs. Besides the modal
auxiliaries, however, there is a wide range of linguistic devices in English
which equally deserve the semantic label 'modal', but linguistically these are
invariably mentioned only in so far as they may serve as paraphrases to
elucidate the meaning of modal auxiliaries. Thus, a group of expressions such
as (want to, would like to, and wish to) would be regarded by many linguists as
little differing in meaning. Allan (1986: 170-171, B), for example, states that
for a number of reasons, speakers are more likely to use "forbid" than "not
want" in the following examples:
119. I forbid you to tell him the truth.
120. I don’t want you to tell him the truth.
However, the latter can, nevertheless, function as a negative performative.
Moreover, Allan (1986: 170-171, B) thinks that "the negation with a
performative cannot be used to deny that an (any) illocutionary act has taken
place; but it can be used to deny a particular illocution".
Thornbury (2004: 213) denotes that even in English there is a number of
ways of expressing modality apart from using modal verbs. For instance:
- adverbs: probably; perhaps; maybe
- adjectives: it's likely that; it's possible that
- participles: you are allowed to; it's forbidden to
- lexical verbs: I advise you to; I suggest that you
۳۸
2.5.8.1 Str. 11: "Must Not"

Perkins (1983: 19) states that modality is concerned exclusively with the
syntactic class of modal auxiliary verbs which constitute the only formally
coherent class of modal expressions in English. The auxiliary verbs are called
so because they cannot be used alone, but rather with other verbs in order to
convey a particular sense or 'mode' such as permission, obligation, prohibition,
etc. There are negative modal auxiliaries which can be used with prohibitive
sentences such as ('must not', 'may not', 'can not', 'shall not').
Jespersen (1949: 464) presents a considerable description about the use of
'must not'. He mentions that a prohibition means a positive command to not to
do something; thus,
121. You must (positive) not take that (negative).
Eastwood (2002: 118) demonstrates that 'must not' is used to tell someone
not to do something as in:
122. You must not forget your railcard.
The meaning is the same as "Don't forget your railcard". The speaker feels the
necessity.
He adds that 'must not' can be used to forbid something as in:
123. Students must not use dictionaries in the examination.
The speaker or writer is the authority, the person who feels the necessity to stop
the use of dictionaries (ibid).
Regarding this point, Chalker (1989: 129) states that prohibition can be
described as 'a negative obligation' which is expressed by using 'must not'.
Because 'must' is speaker-imposed obligation, there is always an element of
future reference for the activity that is necessary. He gives an example
illustrating necessity to act:
124. People must not ill-treat children.
Hornby (1961: 204) illustrates that 'must not' is used for prohibitions as in:
۳۹
125. Cars must not be parked in front of the entrance.

For a prohibition, Hornby (ibid: 221) asserts that 'must not' is stronger than a
denial of permission which is expressed by 'may not'.
126. Reference books must not be taken away from the reading room.
127. You mustn't tell a soul (Thornbury, 2004: 214).
2.5.8.2 Str. 12: "May Not"
For Jespersen (1949: 464), a prohibition means "the negative of a
permission" as in:
128. You may not (negative) take (positive) that.
which takes the sense of
129. You are not allowed to take that.
As prohibition is the opposite of permission, Jespersen (2007: 299)
mentions that a natural way of expressing it is by means of 'may not'.
Leech (1971: 89) looks at the following as prohibitions:
130. You may not smoke in here.
131. You must not smoke in here.
which can be paraphrased respectively as:
132. I don’t permit you to smoke in here.
133. I oblige you not to smoke in here.
The above two sentences differ in that (132) illustrates forceful positively
forbidding instead of negatively refusing permission as in (133).
"May not" is also used to express prohibition, usually in official notices e.g.,
134. Dogs may not be taken into these carriages.
135. People may not pick flowers in this park (Eckersley and Eckersley,
1960: 205)
Ernst (2004: 382) explains that "may not" can be used to express prohibition
as in the following example:
136. You may not go.
٤۰
which means
137. You are forbidden to go.
2.5.8.3 Str. 13: "Cannot"
The negative form of can, i.e. 'cannot' could be used to express prohibition.
Leech (1989: 74) says that 'cannot' means something is forbidden or not
allowed.
138. I’m sorry, you cannot smoke in the hospital.
139. You cannot go abroad without a passport.
Similarly, Hornby (1961: 204) manifests that 'cannot' is used in the sense of
'not allowed or permitted to'
140. You can't play football in the park today! It's Sunday.
Moreover, Hornby (ibid: 221) mentions that 'cannot' is sometimes used as
'must not' to express a prohibition.
141. You cannot (must not, are not allowed to) play football in the park on
Sundays, though you may do so on weekdays.
Zandvoort (1965: 65) denotes that 'cannot' (negative of may) is used to
express prohibition.
142. You cannot play football in England on Sunday, though you may, of
course, on Saturday.
Murphy (2004: 52) states that 'cannot' can be used to mean that something is
not possible or not allowed, or somebody has no ability to do something as in:
143. I'm afraid I can't come to the party on Friday.
Additionally, the tentative form of 'can' which is 'could' can be used with 'not'
to describe past prohibition (Gethin, 1983: 114)
144. We could not (= were not allowed to) keep pets at our school.
٤۱
2.5.8.4 Str. 14: "Shall Not"

Jespersen (2007: 276) mentions that 'shall' is no longer used as it was in the
Bible in the form of a negative command (i.e. prohibition). Thus, the Biblical
expression,
145. 'Thou shalt not kill'
would now be more idiomatically rendered,
146. 'You must not kill',
and that 'You shall not kill' is to be avoided.
Close (1968: 111) manifests that 'shall not' refers to future which reflects the
speaker’s will, command or prohibition.
147. You shall not ignore my wishes.
'Should' behaves differently from 'could', 'might', as mentioned by Chalker
(1989: 126), in being a tentative equivalent of 'shall'. However, 'should' is
sometimes a weaker 'shall'. Compare:
148. Nobody shall leave the room during the examination. [Prohibition].
149. Nobody should leave the room during the examination. [Prohibition
weakened to advice].
Likewise, Leech and Svartvik (1994: 165) remark that a weakened
prohibition (more like negative advice) can be indicated by 'should not' as in
150. She shouldn't be so impatient.
2.5.9 Str. 15: Prohibitive Subjunctive to Express Prohibition
Wallace (2000: 204) illustrates that prohibitive subjunctive means the use
of the subjunctive in a prohibition - that is - a negative command. It is used to
forbid the occurrence of an action. The structure is usually μή + aorist
subjunctive (i.e. in Greek Language), typically in the second person. Its force is
equivalent to an imperative after μή; hence, it should be translated 'Do not'
rather than 'You should not'. The prohibitive subjunctive is frequently used in
the New Testament.
٤۲
151. John 3: 7. Do not be amazed that I said to you, "You must be born
again".
152. Rev 22: 10. Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book.
2.6 The Relationship between Prohibition and Politeness
The concept of politeness in prohibition is rarely found, and if found, it is
used to mitigate the strong effect of the imperative (Schiffman, 1996: 1).
Schiffman (ibid) affirms that the negative imperative ''do not do such-and-
such'' is formed by adding 'do not'. What is more, 'please' can be used to make
the imperative polite as in:
153. Please don’t go.
154. Please don’t sleep here.
There is a number of clauses that guard against potential negative face
affronts to Hearer. In this sense, Allan (1986: 243, B) illustrates that if Speaker
wants Hearer to do something, then he will often tell him or ask him to do it yet
save Hearer’s face somewhat by using 'please' or 'if you don’t mind'. For
Allan, ''please'' means 'if it pleases him' which indicates that Hearer does 'Act' if
it pleases him or does not if not-where 'does Act' implies to carry out some act
that is supplied from context.
155. Please don’t litter the grounds.
On the other hand, Leech (1989: 108) believes that indirect illocutions are
considered more polite for two reasons:
a. because they increase the degree of optionality, and
b. because the more indirect illocution is the more diminished and
tentative its force tends to be.
Furthermore, politeness is associated with different illocutionary act since its
maxims such as ''Generosity, Tact, Approbation and Modesty'' are applied to different
contexts.
156. You must not come late.
157. I cannot lend you my car.
٤۳
The two examples above have the illocutionary force of prohibition which are
supposed to be more polite for two reasons: (a) because ''they imply benefit to hearer,
and (b) because they imply cost to speaker'' (ibid).
On his part, Lakoff (1973: 298) gives the following rules of politeness:
a. Do not impose.
b. Give options.
c. Make addressee feel good-be friendly.
Thus, according to these rules the following sentence,
158. Don’t open the door.
results in a violation of the rules of politeness since the hearer has not been left
options, nor has he been made good. However, the speaker is in a superior
position to the hearer; that is why he imposes upon him to do the action, i.e. not
opening the door.
2.7 Intonation and Speech Act of Prohibition
Lodge (2009: 4) states that one of the most important cues (in English, at
least) in spoken language in determining interpersonal meaning is what is called
intonation. By 'interpersonal meaning' is meant those aspects of
communication that are not determined by the lexical meaning of words nor by
some aspects of the syntax. Intonation patterns can convey a speakers attitude to
the content of what (s)he is saying to the hearer(s); in interaction with the order
of syntactic phrases they can also indicate what the speaker believes to be new
information for the hearer(s).
Scholars generally admit the importance and significance of intonation in
characterizing the meaning of single words and utterances. For instance,
Searle (1972: 30) proposes the notion of illocutionary force indicating devices
(IFIDs) stating that intonation contour is one of these devices. Huddleston
(1988: 355) considers prosody (including intonation) as one of the special
٤٤
factors contributing to the overriding of the initial assignment of illocutionary

force.
Nileson (2000: 5) presents several tools whereby one can deduce the
meaning of an utterance focusing on the significant role of prosody in this
respect. Clark and Yallop (1999: 3280) define prosody as a term used to refer to
the suprasegmental or non-segmental features of speech. According to Brine
(2001: 12), the illocutionary force of an utterance is not only conveyed by
words someone utters or the order in which these words are put but also can be
conveyed by other things like prosody. Cook (2003: 49) argues that tone of
voice is one of the contextual factors which might be involved in interpreting
the utterance.
Accordingly, it is inferred that intonation has a crucial significance to the
meaning of utterances. Scholars generally believe that intonation is an
influential factor in interpreting the illocutionary force of the utterance to be
considered as commanding, advising, warning, requesting or prohibiting, etc.
2.8 The Stress Factor and Speech Act of Prohibition
Jones (1972: 41) defines stress as "the degree of force that is given to
specific syllables when they are pronounced by the addresser" .
Stress is a suprasegmental feature of an utterance. It applies not to
individual vowels and consonants but to whole syllables whatever they might
be (Abercrombie, 1967: 35; Gimson, 1980: 222; Trask, 1996: 336).
Scholars deal with stress in terms of its linguistic function under two
headings: word stress and sentence stress. The former tackles the placement of
stress within single words pronounced mainly in isolation, while the latter deals
with the assignment of stress as a property of a whole sentence and the
functional role it has in the sentence (Gimson, 1980: 222).
Trask (1996: 390) defines word stress as "the presence within a single word,
especially in isolation, but usually also in connected speech, of stress on some
٤٥
particular syllable". On the other hand, sentence stress is defined by McArthur

(1992: 2, cited in Al-Rifa’i, 2004: 60) as "the process whereby some words in
an utterance are made prominent while others remain in the background".
Scholars generally admit the importance of stress in identifying the meaning
of single words and sentences. For Searle (1972: 30), stress is one of the
illocutionary force indicating devices in English (IFIDs). This point is
supported by Robinson (2002: 13) who agrees with Searle (1969) upon
considering stress as an indicating device of the illocutionary force arguing that
stress is a real component of the pragmatic meaning.
Similarly, Huddleston (1988: 130) considers prosody (including stress) as
"one of the special factors contributing to the overriding of the initial
assignment of the illocutionary force".
Trouson (2002: 8) mentions that the addresser, in certain context, stresses or
overstresses one word in his/her utterance to show its importance to the
illocutionary force and that this stress can have different positions in the
utterance according to the context and the addresser's intended meaning.
For Brine (2001: 12), prosody, including stress, is one of many factors
which contributes to convey the illocutionary force of the utterance for having a
vital role in communication. Concerning the importance of stress in the
meaning of the utterance, Bally (2002: 10) states that the phonological stress is
one of the different linguistic elements the addresser can use in order to clarify
his/her intended illocutionary force. Moreover, Allan (1986: 11, B) proves that
"stress is assigned on the basis of the addresser's decision as to the most
appropriate means of presenting the information in his message". Allan
(ibid: 19) also refers to the influential role of context stating that the stress
position changes according to the different contexts in which the sentence
occurs. Quirk et al. (1985: 1594) state that "the disposition of stress is subject
to the speaker’s will and the meaning he wishes to convey".
٤٦
2.9 Brown and Levinson's (1979) Model

Van Dijk (1993: 6) states that models have a strategic nature when used, i.e.
built, retrieved and/or applied. A strategy is defined by Van Dijk & Kintsch
(1983: 64) as ''the idea of an agent about the best way to act in order to reach a
goal''. Strategies in general are not plans (the cognitive representation of
action ) nor steps to achieve the plans; rather, they are the means of reaching the
goals of such plans in a fast and efficient way.
Moreover, Al-Hindawy (1999: 121) explains that Brown and Levinson's
account of the situational factors influencing the choice of language has a
prominent place in many empirical research. Brown and Levinson (1979) argue
that in choosing a certain strategy for expressing a certain SA, speakers
consider the advantages associated with this strategy (e.g. clarity, efficiency,
politeness,….etc.). However, they assert that the speakers' attempts to attain
these advantages are hindered by various opposing forces, which they term as
''the circumstances'' or ''sociological variables''. These variables include the
social distance (D) of speaker and hearer, the relative power (P) of speaker
and hearer, and the ranking (R) of the SA imposition.
Thus, when a speaker attempts to suit a particular language choice to a
specific occasion, s/he requires a calculation of the weightiness and this
depends not only on the degree of imposition but also on the social distance
and relative power of speaker and hearer. Power, here, is an asymmetric
relation which refers to the authority the participants enjoy in terms of their
statuses and roles. Social distance is a symmetric relation and can be viewed as
associated with the term ''solidarity''. It concerns how much experience the
participants share, how many social characteristics they share (e.g., religion,
sex, age, region of origin, race, occupation, interests, etc.) , how far they are
prepared to share intimacies and other factors. In short, as Lee-Wong (1994)
٤۷
argues, "social distance is defined along the scale of familiarity and kinship"
(ibid).
However, it should be noticed that speech communities differ in the
relative weight or value they give to imposition and this might constitute a
complicating problem for foreign speakers of a certain language (Al-Hindawy,
1999: 121).
The factors discussed in this section (2.9), i.e., status, the social distance
and the relative power will be the base of building up the situations of the test
of the practical part of this study.
2.10 A Model of the Analysis of the Speech Act of Prohibition's
Strategies
As far as the aims of this study are concerned, the features of the speech
act of prohibition which have been discussed in (2.3.1), (2.3.2) and (2.5) can be
categorized with some modification as follows:
1) A direct prohibitive construction. This includes:

A) An explicit performative expression: Lyons (1977: 728) and Allan
(1998: 4) assert that an explicit performative sentence can be only a
declarative sentence to denote an actualization of the illocutionary act
and it includes a performative verb. For example:
159. I forbid you to open that letter.
160. I prohibit them to speak to him.
2) An indirect prohibitive construction. This includes:
A) An imperative construction: Trask (1993: 135) defines imperative
as the mood category associated with the uttering of commands, for instance:
161. Wash your hands! [Command]
162. Keep out. [Prohibition]
٤۸
The main grammatical form of imperative is the simplest possible form of the
verb.
B) A negative imperative construction: It is characterized by the presence
of ''do not'' before the imperative to turn the command into a prohibition. In
negative imperative (prohibitive), ''do not'' is used plus a predicator (Binnick,
1991: 68-70).
163. Don't speak.
164. Don't anybody say anything.
165. Don't tell anybody, will you?
C) The Verbs ''avoid'', ''stop'' and ''not allowed'': Haverkate (1979: 40)
mentions that the verbs ''avoid'' and ''stop'' plus gerund are used to express
prohibition as in:
166. Avoid talking with Bob.
167.a. Stop laughing!
b. You are not allowed to park in here.
D) Be+ Not+ To+ Infinitive construction: This construction is
characterized by the presence of a common construction which is the negative
verb ''be'' plus '' to + infinitive '' to express prohibition (Thomson and
Martinet,1986: 268).
168. You are not to enter.
169. He is not to come into my room without permission.
E) An indirect (reported) speech construction: Indirect speech means that
the reporting of what someone else has said without using her/his exact words
(Trask, 1993: 140).
170. Lisa said she would come.
If (170) was expressed in direct speech, the result would be:
171. Lisa said ''I'll come''.
172. Peter told Ann not to tell lies.
٤۹
173. He asked her not to play with his personal things. [A father to his
little daughter].
F) Expressions of ''brief announcements'' and ''block language'':
Prohibition can be expressed by brief announcements (Hornby, 1961: 204).
Prohibition on notice boards often takes the form of a nominal phrase
introduced by ''no'' (Quirk et al., 1985: 1403). For example:
174. No entry.
176. No smoking.
G) A Modal verb: As we mentioned earlier in (2.5.10), the use of modality
enables the speaker to express his attitude towards a situation in interpersonal
communication, usually realised in English by modal auxiliaries (mood)
(Hartmann and Stork, 1976: 142). To express prohibition ''not'' is used after
modals as in the following examples:
178. You may not smoke in here.
179. You cannot smoke in the hospital.
This model will be adopted for the analysis of the data of the work in
Chapter Four
٥۰
Chapter Three
Related Speech Acts: Directives and Commissives Speech Acts
3.1 Introduction
This chapter is intended to present and identify five related speech acts
to the speech act of prohibition, four of which are directives and the other is a
commissive one. The basic aim of this chapter is to draw a clear distinction
between SA of prohibition and some other related speech acts, namely
commanding, advising, warning, requesting and threatening and explain their
felicity conditions which can help in identifying such acts.
3.2 Directive Speech Acts
Directive speech acts are closely related to the speech act of prohibition and
they constitute an utterance whose purpose is to get other people to do
something in accordance with what the speaker says. They tend to change the
world to fit the speaker's words. The speaker of a directive speech act desires
that his addressees do the required action implied in the propositional content of
the act. This means that directives are "utterances which impose, or propose,
some course of action or pattern of behaviour and indicate that it should be
carried out" (Lyons, 1977: 746).
3.2.1 The Nature of Command
Kroeger (2005: 199) asserts that the defining property of a command is that
the hearer (or addressee) is being told to do something. This means that an
imperative verb will always have a second person actor, which (in most
languages) will be the subject. For this reason any overt reference to the subject,
whether as an NP or by verbal agreement, is likely to be redundant. However,
imperative verbs are frequently unmarked for person, even in languages which
normally require the verb to agree with the person of the subject; and
imperative clauses frequently lack a subject NP. Where there is an overt subject
NP, it will always be a second person pronoun.
٥۱
Kroeger (2005: 200) argues that the above features of the imperative verbs
can be observed in the English examples in (180). With most English verbs the
lack of agreement marking is not obvious since the imperative form is the same
as the second person present tense. But the lack of agreement morphology can
be seen with the verb to be, as in (180 b), since the normal second person form
would be are.
180.
a. (You) give me that letter!
b. (You) be good!
c. Don’t (you) forget to lock the door!
Kroeger (ibid: 345) states that the imperative is considered as the major
mood which is normally used to express commands.
Downing and Locke (2006: 177) mention that the traditional term 'command'
is nowadays applicable only in contexts of great inequality and power such as
the military. The term 'directive' is used instead in everyday environments to
cover such acts as requests, prohibitions and instructions, as well as orders and
commands. In other words, The term 'command' is normally used to refer to an
action that would be performed by telling a person to do something provided
that this telling is done by someone who has the authority to initiate such
instructions.
Searle and Vanderveken (1985: 201) illustrate the semantical analysis of
English illocutionary verb of 'command' by mentioning that the difference
between telling someone to do something on the one hand and commanding
him to do it on the other hand is that commanding has a greater degree of
strength than telling, and this greater degree of strength derives from the fact
that when one issues a command one invokes a position of power or authority
over the hearer. This denotes that the issuance of a command, however, requires
that the speaker be in a position of authority over the hearer.
٥۲
Pragmatically, Austin (1962: 155-6) locates 'command' within the broad

category of 'Exercitives', saying that they postulate the exercise of speaker's
authority over hearer. Unlike Austin, all other speech act theorists such as
Searle (1969 and 1979); Bach and Harnish (1979) argue that the illocutionary
act of command should be accommodated under the major category of
'Directives' by which the speaker wishes or wants to get the hearer to do the
action assumed in the expressed proposition.
Bach and Harnish (1979: 47) and Allan (1986: 199, B), adopting a more
comprehensive and good taxonomy, classify command as a member of the
category of 'Requirement' (as a subcategory of Directives). According to Bach
and Harnish (1979: 47), command is an utterance with which the speaker
requires the hearer to do the act in accordance with the speaker's belief that his
utterance, in virtue of his authority over the hearer, constitutes a sufficient
reason for the hearer to execute the act in compliance with the speaker's
expressed proposition. This indicates that for a command to be established,
there must be certain authority impelling the recipient to perform the act. Adler
(1980: 23) states that there is a striking point here which is not only the real
existence of such an authority but also the addressee's perception of the status of
the speaker's authority. This means for the illocutionary act of command to be
performed happily, it must be properly recognized by the recipient as being
directed to him as a command (not a request, begging, invitation, etc) so that he
realizes that he is committed to comply with it.
Taking into consideration the psychological state of the speaker, wanting is
the basic mental state of the speech act of command. In other words, wanting is
identified , according to Auwera (1980: 261), as "a stimulus for an effort to
reproduce some part of the mind in the outer world". For example, in issuing
the utterance Open the window, the father clearly wants his son to open the
window. In the case of command, wanting (of the commander) and the hearer's
compliance are two prerequisite conditions, if the act is to be achieved
٥۳
felicitously. For this reason, the illocutionary act of command can often be
paraphrased into "I want you to V…". When I shout at my little daughter
"Shut up", I exactly want her to shut up. My utterance will be interpreted as
"I want you to shut up".
Since command-performance requires a sort of imposition by the
commander on the commandee. Haverkate (1984: 107) describes command as
an impositive speech act "performed by the speaker to influence the intentional
behaviour of the hearer in order to get the latter to perform, primarily for the
benefit of the speaker, the action directly specified or indirectly suggested by
the proposition". The point of imposition, especially in cases of command, may
be so strong, to the extent, that command utterance leaves to the addressee no
option of refusing to comply with it.
In this regard, Lyons (1977: 751) differentiates between commands and
statements by asserting that they are often construed as 'so be it' rather than
'it is so'. He explains that a command tells the recipient that something is to be
done so whereas a statement tells him that something is so. The following
examples make this point clearer:
181. Tell me what John did.
182. You are telling me what John did.
The utterance (181) tells the addressee that s/he is to do something (to tell the
speaker what John did), whereas (182) shows that the addressee only tells his
partner that something is so (what John did).
Socially and psychologically, commands differ from demands, requests, and
pleas in that the commander "believes that he has the authority to control the
intentional behaviour of the recipient and expects to be obeyed". This may
illustrate why commands are basically given by military commanders,
employers, parents, teachers, and bullies, but not by persons in a position of no
power (Green, 1975: 120).
٥٤
3.2.1.1 Felicity Conditions of Command

To specify an utterance as a certain type of speech act, and in order to
distinguish it from other kinds of speech act, there must be certain appreciate
conditions which determine that such a type of speech act is successfully
performed. The identification and characterization of command as a distinct
speech act can be assigned through setting up a set of appropriate conditions.
Allan (1986: 199, B) offers a suitable scheme (significantly giving reference
to speaker's intention) of felicity conditions. For Allan, a command is a speech
act of requirement in which speaker requires hearer to do act. Correspondingly,
Bach and Harnish (1979: 47) adopt a similar set of felicity conditions.
Searle (1972: 66) proposes the following conditions in order to identify the
speech act of command:
Table (4)
Searle's Felicity Conditions for Command
The Formulation of the Condition in the case of

Types of Condition
Command
Propositional Condition The speaker S predicates a future act A of the
hearer H
Preparatory Condition 1- H is able to do A

2- S believes H is able to do A
3- S in a position of authority over H
Sincerity Condition S wants H to do A
Essential Condition The utterance counts as an attempt to get H to do A

in virtue of the authority of S over H
3.2.2 The Nature of Advice and Warning

The verb advise (v.), in our everyday life, is often taken to mean ''to tell
somebody what you think he should do[of course in his interest] in a particular
situation'' (OALDNE, s.v. advise). For example, in saying:
٥٥
183. I advise you to sleep early,

the speaker offers his addressee a sensible or good idea by telling him
(something beneficial to him) to sleep early (ibid).
The verb warn (v.), on the other hand, often means ''to tell somebody about
something, especially something dangerous or unpleasant that is likely to
happen, so that he can avoid it'' (OALDNE, s.v. warn). For instance, in saying:
184. I warn you against pickpockets,
the speaker asks his addressee to be careful because he expects that something
dangerous or unpleasant may take place (pickpocketing) so that the addressee
can avoid it (being pickpocketed) (ibid).
Pragmatically, the speech act verbs of advice and warning, according to
Austin (1962: 151), are identified as category members of the main class of
Exercitives. Austin (ibid: 155) states that an exercitive speech act is "the
exercising of powers, rights or influence". It involves "the giving of a decision
in favour of or against a certain course of action, or advocacy of it…its
consequences may be that others are 'compelled' or 'allowed' or 'not allowed' to
do certain acts". In other words, an exercitive speech act exhibits either "an
assertion of influence" and thus occurring in the assertive forms as in the
sentences below (185) and (186) or "exercising of power" occurring in the
imperative forms as in (187) and (188) in the following examples:
185. a. I advise you that you should come earlier. (Explicit performative)
b. You should come earlier. (Implicit performative)
186. a. I warn you that there is a bull in the field. (Explicit performative)
b. There is a bull in the field. (Implicit performative)
187. a. I advise you to eat more fruit. (Explicit performative)

b. Eat more fruit. (Implicit performative)
188 . a. I warn you to stand away from the cow. (Explicit performative)
b. Stand away from the cow. (Implicit performative) (ibid)
٥٦
Although both speech act verbs advise and warn are placed within the
category of 'Directives' according to Searle (1972 and 1979), Bach and Harnish
(1979), one can argue that such speech act verbs can be also grouped under the
category of Assertives, since the definition of assertive verbs include
committing the speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition.
This problem is actually settled by Leech (1983: 207-8) who mentions that
the two verbs advise and warn are polysemous (i.e. each can denote two
different but related senses) and that they syntactically enter into more than one
category, in other words, either assertive, in the sense that the speaker advises
or warns hearer that something will happen if …, or directive, in the sense that
speaker advises or warns hearer to do something about it. For instance:
189. a. She advised us that there had been a mistake.
b. They warned us that the food was expensive. [Assertive]
190. a. She advised us to attend the lecture.
b. They warned us to take enough money. [Directive]
It is important to illustrate that although advising and warning are directive
speech acts, one should not view them as a type of requesting (or commanding)
simply because they do not constitute ''an attempt to get you to take evasive
action'' (Searle, 1972: 67). Rather, they are more like telling the addressee what
is best for him (advising) or what is dangerous or unpleasant for him (warning).
Bach and Harnish (1979: 47-8) and Allan (1986: 200, B) classify advice and
warning as members of the subcategory of Advisories (a branch of Directives).
As advisories are based on the expressed attitudes, they show that what the
speaker expresses is a sort of belief to imply that doing an action is a good idea
and that is in the hearer's interest. In addition, the speaker's intention is that the
hearer takes the speaker's belief as a reason for performing the act. For example,
in warning someone by saying ''You should come earlier'' (Korbuyva, 2005:
26), the speaker assumes the presence of some likely source of danger or
trouble for the hearer. Consequently, s/he indirectly offers his warning (to
٥۷
reduce a person to misery). For this reason the hearer can avoid it or take a
stand.
Since warning is often deemed dependent on the assumption of the speaker
that something undesirable or unpleasant might happen to the hearer, Searle
(1972: 67) and Quirk et al. (1985: 1088-90) maintain that most warnings are
probably hypothetical, realized by if-conditional clauses, following the sentence
pattern: If you do not X, Y will occur:
191. If you don't come early, you will be punished.
Quirk et al. (ibid) clarify the point by stating that the successful performance
of a speech act of warning, particularly in case of implicit speech utterances
involving if-conditional, is based on the hearer's proper interpretation of that
act. For instance:
192. She is resigning, if you know what I mean (ibid: 1069).
193. If you pressed that button, the engine would stop (ibid: 234).
194. If you put the baby down, she'll scream (ibid: 1088).
All the utterances in (192-4) represent an illocutionary act of warning, as the
speaker indirectly warns his hearer that something unhappy might happen if…,
but he is not sure that his addressee will interpret the wording properly and take
it as warning for him to avoid the thing he is warned of. Perhaps, the speaker in
such examples does not want to straightforwardly warn his addressee; therefore,
he uses if-conditional strategy as a smoother way of warning (Halliday, 1973:
87-8).
Thomas (1995: 103-4), from a different angle, distinguishes two types of
warning realized by different grammatical forms and different conditions.
The first type refers to warnings given to situations, in which ''one can do
nothing to avoid the event itself, although it is sometimes, possible, as in the
case of flood, hurricane or other severe weather warning to take steps to avoid
some of the worst consequences of the event''.
٥۸
195. … She wouldn't take a groom with her, although I warned her that the
fog would come down later.
This type of warning is realized by the grammatical form of declarative (e.g.
the severe weather warning remains in force, with risk of flooding in some
areas) or imperative (e.g. Macbeth, Macbeth, beware Macduff!) (ibid).
The second type relates to cases in which one can avoid the unpleasant event
altogether.
196. … I warn him that if he didn't stop, the police would be informed.
This type often takes the form of a negative imperative (e.g. Do not lean out of
the train window) or conditional (e.g. If you move, I'll shoot you) (ibid).
As a result, it has been noted that all speech act theorists such as Searle
(1969 and 1979), Bach and Harnish (1979) agree that the speech act verbs
advise and warn are best fitting to Directives rather than any other categories,
since all personal directives, including advise and warn, are determined by the
addressee-based condition. Thus, the speaker believes that the addressee can
comply with the given illocutionary act; otherwise, one cannot advise or warn
any person to perform an action which one believes he is incapable of
performing it (Lyons, 1977: 746).
However, warning may be described as a kind of advice. Searle (1979: 28)
states that advice and warning may involve either 'telling us that something is
the case, or telling us to do something about it since it is not in the hearer's best
interest'. However, the speech act of Warning differs from Advising in having
negative values for the attributes of the cost and benefit against positive values
for the same attributes in advice. That is why it is preferred to place advice
and warning within the same section.
3.2.2.1 Felicity Conditions of Advice
According to the characteristics of the speech act of advice mentioned
earlier, the necessary and sufficient conditions for specifying a certain speech
act as advice can be formulated. Searle (1972: 57-61) and Levinson ( 1983:
٥۹
238-9) assert that when the speaker S utters a sentence T that is addressed to
hearer H, then in the literal utterance of T, S sincerely and non-defectively
advises H to proposition P if the following conditions obtain:
1. S tells H to perform a future action that is beneficial to H.
2. S wishes H to do this action, though H may not.
3. S believes H can do that action, and that doing is in the best interest of H.
4. S thinks H is unaware of the desirability of doing it in the normal course
of action.
5. S believes that it is his moral obligation to tell the beneficial act.
6. S utters utterance U.
7. Both S and H comprehend U.
8. Both S and H are conscious, normal human beings.
9. They are both in normal circumstances, not e.g. joking or acting in a
play.
10. U can be understood as having some IFID, which is only properly
uttered if all the appropriate conditions obtain.
In view of the conditions above, Searle (1969: 67) illustrates a set of felicity
conditions for the illocutionary act of advice. They are as follows:
٦۰
Table (5)
Searle's Felicity Conditions for Advice (Searle, 1972: 67)

Types of Condition
Advice
Propositional Condition Future act A is predicted of hearer H
Preparatory Condition 1- S has some reason to believe A will benefit H

2- It is not obvious to both S and H that H will do
A in the normal course of events
Sincerity Condition S believes A will benefit H
Essential Condition The uttering of words counts as an undertaking to

the effect that A is in H's best interest
3.2.2.2 Felicity Conditions of Warning

Given that the speech act verbs of advice and warning refer to the same
category of 'Directives', submitting to the same sufficient and necessary
conditions (with the exception that in case of warning, the addressee is warned
of something undesirable and not beneficial to him), warning is often seen
related to advising in the sense that the speaker tells the hearer, in the former,
what is best for him and in the latter what is not best for him. In this case,
warning can be interpreted as advising someone not to do something. However,
a set of felicity conditions, proposed by Searle (1972: 67) to identify warning as
a distinct speech act, are formulated:
٦۱
Table (6)
Searle's Felicity Conditions for Warning (Searle, 1972: 67)

Types of Condition
Warning
Propositional Condition Future event or state, etc. E is predicted of hearer
Preparatory Condition 1- S thinks E will occur and it is not in H's interest

2-S thinks it is not obvious to H that E will occur
Sincerity Condition S believes E is not in H's best interest
Essential Condition The uttering of words counts as an undertaking to

the effect that E is not in H's best interest
3.2.3 The Nature of Request

The fourth speech act which is considered as a related act to the speech act of
prohibition is the speech act of request. Requests, like commands, advice,
warnings, are directive acts.
As far as the source and recipient of the request are concerned, the request
might initiate in one source as in ''Help me'' or in more than one source as in
''Help us''. Request can be addressed to one or more addressees as in ''Give me
a hand, John'' and ''Give me a hand, boys''. It has also the illocutionary force of
getting people to do things. This means requests can be characterized as
''pre-event'' act. The desired act is to take place post-utterance, either in the
immediate future ''act now'' or at some later stage ''act-then'' [(Trosborg, 1995)
as cited in (Al-Hindawy, 1999: 66)].
According to OALD, request is defined as an act of politely or formally
asking for something. Similarly, Green (1975: 121) defines requests as the
procedure used in polite society for getting someone to do something. He
proceeds by saying that the speaker who utters a request is someone who has or
٦۲
is acting as if he has no authority or power to compel compliance. Moreover,

Lyons (1977: 749) clarifies that the crucial difference between a command and
a request is that a request leaves to the addressee the option of refusal to comply
with the mand, whereas a command does not. Thus, one way in which this
option of refusal may be encoded in the verbal component of English utterances
is by adding the form "please''. A sentence like:
197. Open the door, please,
will therefore be normally used to make a request. But information that is
encoded in the verbal component of an utterance may be contradicted or
cancelled by information that is encoded prosodically or paralinguistically.
However, the difference between commands and requests is in fact basically
conveyed in the non-verbal component of utterances. In this respect, Lyons
(ibid: 60) mentions that it is fair to assume that all languages have such
prosodic features as stress and intonation and these features constitute an
important part of the non-verbal component of utterances. It is worth
mentioning that the term 'paralinguistic' has been used to cover, not only
certain features of vocal signals (e.g. loudness and what may be described as
tone of voice), but in addition those gestures, facial expressions, eye-
movements, etc., which play a supporting role in normal communication by
means of spoken language.
Another way used in English to encode verbally the option of refusal is by
adding a parenthetical interrogative tag (e.g. 'will you?', 'won't you?') to an
imperative clause as in:
198. Open the door, will you?
199. Open the door, won't you?
This indicates that the tag added to an imperative clause clearly means that the
speaker is conceding to the addressee the option of refusal. But, once again, this
concession may be contradicted or cancelled by the prosodic or paralinguistic
component of the utterance (Lyons, 1977: 749). Trosborg (1995),
٦۳
cited in Al-Hindawy (1999: 57), illustrates that a request is an illocutionary act

whereby a speaker (requester) conveys to a hearer (requestee) that s/he wants
the requestee to perform an act which is for the benefit of the speaker. In this
sense, the speech act of request shares with the speech act of command the
same feature. Al-Hindawy (1999: 57) states that McCawley distinguishes
between requests and commands. McCawley confirms that a request is an act
which commits the person to whom it is addressed to considering it and
commits the speaker to being grateful if the request is complied with. Whereas,
commands ''make something the case by saying that it is to be the case, though
what they make the case is not something that is describable by the apparent
complement sentence''. For instance, he presents the following example:
When you order someone to shine your shoes,
you are not causing her/him to shine your shoes.
Rather, you are making her/him indebted to you
a shoeshine.
This means that the addressee will remain in this debt until s/he shines your
shoes or you release her/him from the obligation by cancelling your order.
Bach and Harnish (1979: 48) manifest that requestives are expressions which
convey the speaker's desire that the hearer do something. Moreover, they
express the speaker's intention that the hearer takes this expressed desire as
reason (or part of his reason) to act. Accordingly, requests will consist of the
following acts such as asking, begging, entreating, imploring, pleading, and
praying.
Searle and Vanderveken (1985: 199) state that ''a request is a directive
illocution that allows for the possibility of refusal''. This illustrates that a
request can be granted or refused by the hearer.
٦٤
3.2.3.1 Felicity Conditions of Request

In order to identify the speech act of request, there must be certain conditions
to discriminate it from other speech acts. Searle (1972: 66) identifies the
conditions which constitute a request as follows:
Table (7)
Searle's Felicity Conditions for Request (ibid: 66)

Types of Condition
Request
Propositional Condition The speaker S predicates a future act A of the
hearer H
Preparatory Condition 1- S assumes H can do A

2-It is not obvious that H would do A without
being asked
Sincerity Condition S wants H to do A
Essential Condition The utterance counts as an attempt by S to get H to

do A
It is clear from this set of conditions that requests are different from commands
(see Table 4 above) basically in terms of preparatory conditions.
Bach and Harnish (1979: 47) state that the speaker performs a request by
uttering an expression and when the speaker S expresses:
1. the desire that the hearer H do the act A, and
2. the intention that H do A because (at least partly) of S's desire.
For this reason, it is the desire of the speaker that makes the hearer to consider
the request.
3.3 Commissive Speech Acts
Commissives are subgroups of illocutionary acts. They are acts of
obligating oneself or of proposing to oblige oneself to do something specified in
٦٥
the propositional content. Thus, in committing oneself to do A, one expresses

the intention to do A and the belief that one's utterance commits one to doing it,
at least under the conditions specified, or mutually believed to be relevant
(Bach and Harnish, 1979: 49).
Commissives are firstly recognized by Austin (1962: 151) who says that
commissives are typified by promising or otherwise undertaking; they commit
the speaker to do something, but include also declarations or announcements of
intention. The main point in commissives is to commit the S to a certain course
of action. Examples are: promise, pledge, threaten, vow, swear, etc.
In his classification of SAs, Searle (1979: 14) adopts Austin's term and
definition of commissives but he adds that commissives, like directives, operate
a change in the world by means of creating an obligation. This obligation is
created in the S, not in the H, as in the case of directives.
Traugott and Pratt (1980: 230) point out that commissives are primarily
contractual, establishing state of affairs in the world with few consequences for
the speaker. Partridge (1982: 115- 6) states that commissives are incontestably
future-oriented. The S should be in a superior position to commit himself to
doing something and he should actually be intended to do, for whatever reason
at all. He mentions that all commissives performatives accept 'that-clause'
complementation. He adds that infinitive complementation is admissible in all
commissives predicates except the reflexives 'bind myself' and 'commit myself',
and obligatory in 'engage'.
Leech (1996: 106) asserts that commissives tend to be performed in the
interest of someone other than the S. He (ibid: 206) believes that commissives
verbs may occur in one of two constructions:
A. Sub. + V + (you) that +X. (where X is non-indicative clause)
B. Sub. + V + (you) to + Y. (where Y is an infinitive construction)
٦٦
Allan (1986: 195-6, B) distinguishes two types of commissives: promises

and offers. Promising performatives include promise, swear and vow. Offering
performatives include offer, propose and volunteer.
Humblin (1987: 33) illustrates that promises, undertakings, vows, pledges
and covenants may form a family of commissives that can be understood as
undertakings to do something-or-other. The resulted action may be action not of
the addressee or of any third person, but of the S.
Hurford and Heasley (1983: 262) mention that ''commissive act is any
illocutionary act which essentially involves the speaker committing himself to
behave in some required way''. They (ibid: 264-272) believe that directives and
commissives are the most important activities in maintaining the social fabric of
everyday lives. The propositional content of the commissives can be expressed
by a declarative sentence describing the action which the S undertakes to
perform but they cannot be carried out by questioning their propositional
content.
Searle and Vanderveken (1985: 192) state that commissive verbs include:
commit, promise, threaten, vow, pledge, swear, accept, consent, refuse, offer,
bid, assure, guarantee, warrant, contract, covenant, and bet. Yule (1996: 128)
defines commissive as "a speech act in which the speaker commits him or
herself to some future action, e.g. a promise".
3.3.1 The Nature of Threat
Pearsal (1998: 1930) says that the concept of threat can be observed in
different ways of life. It may be religious, political, economical, and so forth.
Threats can be expressed verbally (verbal action) or non-verbally (physical
action). They may be specified to a person or an authority. In this regard,
threatening speech may be uttered for many reasons, some of which contain
intention or capacity to commit a violent act or a true threat.
Some lexicographers such as Collins (1987: 123), Pearsal (1998: 1930), and
Hornby (2000: 1408) define ''threat'' as a declaration of an intention to inflict
٦۷
pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for

something done or not done. Fein et al. (1995: 1) illustrate that some legislators
of civil law suggest that a statement is a true threat when a reasonable person
making the statement, in context, would foresee that such a statement would be
interpreted by those to whom it is communicated as a serious expression of an
intent to bodily harm or assault. They believe that threats of violence may arise
from feelings or ideas that range from one person to another. Sometimes a
threat is backed by the will and capacity to do harm; at other times, a voiced
threat may amount to nothing but emotional. Additionally, speech may be put in
the realm of threatening when the goal of the speech is to end a legal activity
through violence with attempt to injure or intimidate.
It is significant to mention two points of view about the definition of a true
threat. The first is the objective view when the person makes a statement, in
context, with an intention to inflict or cause serious harm to the listener.
The second view is the subjective one when the S makes a statement of threat
to the listener, regardless of whether the S actually intends to carry out the
threat. This indicates there is a difference between making and posing a threat.
Some legislators assert that even a statement that is ambiguous, subtle or
conditional can amount to a threat in the light of the factual context in which
the statement is made (ibid: 2).
Generally speaking, the act of threatening can be expressed by the use of the
derived verb ''threaten'' and the noun ''threat'' (Hornby, 1961: 206). Nelson
(1966: 530) denotes that the noun ''threat'' is an Anglo-Saxon origin, and the
verb ''threaten'' is used to show an indication of coming evil on the H.
Pearsal (1998: 1930) points out that the word ''threat'' is originated from an old
English word ''oppression'' which is of Germanic origin ''Verdviessen''
(irritate).
Hornby (1961: 207), Palmer (1963: 277-81) and Pearsal (1998: 1930)
propose some patterns for the verb ''threaten'':
٦۸
[Sub.] + V + Od
200. I threaten you.
[Sub.] + V + Od + preposition + prepositional object
201. I threaten him with punishment.
[Sub.] + V + 'to' + infinitive
202. The government threatens to suppress the demonstrators.
Many linguists agree that the verb ''threaten'' is rarely used performatively.
Thus, the SA of threatening can be expressed by different expressions other
than the verb ''threaten''. They believe that the expression ''I threaten you'' is
only marginally acceptable at best (Stubbs, 1983: 156; Hamblin, 1987: 34).
Halliday (1973: 75) illustrates that ''threat'' is a semantic phenomenon
which can be expressed by different situations as in:
203. I'll smack you if you do that again.
204. You'll have to stay indoors if you do that.
This semantic phenomenon, i.e. threat, can be realized grammatically
according to Halliday's Systemic Grammar, i.e. Halliday (1970: 140, 165)
presents his notion of ''Systemic or Functional Grammar'' due to the three
major functions which serve as a means of social communication. These
functions are ideational, interpersonal, and textual which are selected by the S
simultaneously for every SA. He mentions that these functions can be described
according to the transitivity system of the sentence as follows: actor – process –
goal – place. For this reason, 'threat' in (203) is likely to be realized as
transitive clause of action in simple future tense with 'smack' as process, 'I' as
an actor and 'you' as a goal, and the dependent clause being conditional.
Similarly, 'threat' in (204) can be realized as a modalized action clause with
'you' as an actor with a conditional meaning. Thereupon, the semantic options
are related to certain recognizable features in the grammar (Halliday, 1973: 75).
Davies (1986: 116) asserts that there is a close relationship between 'threat'
and the imperative mood on the one hand, and the conditional meaning of an
٦۹
'if-construction', on the other hand. He believes that both constructions are

synonymous as in:
205. Talk and I'll shoot Max.
206. If you talk, I'll shoot Max.
Davies thinks that the imperative construction in (205) is derived from the
'if-construction' in (206) by ellipsis. Moreover, the imperative construction can
be used to express pure indifference or lack of opposition to a possibility when
it occurs as a response to a threat.
207. a. I'll tell mother if you don't stop that.
b. Go and tell her then. I don't care!
Leech and Svartivik (1994: 170: 181) notice that threat can be expressed
conditionally by using the conjunctive 'and', which indicates positive condition,
but in limited context as in:
208. Do that, and I'll tell your mother.
Pragmatically, the act of threatening is rarely accepted as a performative
speech act. But Austin (1962: 131) states that the verb 'threaten' is a
commissive verb which can be used performatively and explicitly in some
contexts. He believes that the perlocutionary act of 'threat' is to intimidate the
H.
Many linguists agree that the act of threatening is a dubious case. Stubbs
(1983: 156) explains that one way to test for performative verbs is to ask
whether the saying of an U is the only way to perform the act. Therefore, he
excludes 'threaten' as a performative verb because one can threaten another
either verbally or non-verbally by shaking a fist or raising the eyebrow. Thus,
'threaten' is only marginally acceptable in some contexts as a response to an
implicit threat as in:
209. a. I'll not punch you on the nose.
b. Don't threaten me.
۷۰
Hamblin (1987: 34) illustrates that the act of threatening can be listed within
the commissive verbs as it is made in the same future-tense form. But this act is
mainly expressed implicitly in a conditional form, and that the object is to get
the addressee to act in a certain way:
210. If you continue to park across my driveway, I'll pour glue in your
carburettor.
3.3.1.1 Felicity Conditions of Threat
For a speech act of threatening to come off properly, the S must assure
her/himself that certain conditions have to be fulfilled. Fraser (1998: 163)
proposes three conditions to perform a verbal threat. Particularly, a threat made
by the speaker (S) should express to the hearer (H) the following points:
1. The belief that some unfavourable A (action) will happen.
2. The belief that action (A) is undesirable to the H's best interest.
3. The intent to intimidate the H.
In order for the threat to be effective, Fraser thinks that the S has to be
either able or willing to carry out the speech act of threatening (ibid).
Allan (1986: 195, B) states that the definition of promises covers both
true promises and threats, for instance:
211. I promise I'll buy you an ice- cream if you stop crying. [True promise]
212. I promise I'll shoot you if you come any closer. [Threat]
He presents the felicity conditions of promises and asserts that they are
applicable to the speech act of threatening. They are as follows:
۷۱
Table (8)
Allan's Felicity Conditions for Threat (Allan, 1986: 195)

Types of Condition
Threatening
Propositional Condition S threats H to do A
Preparatory Condition S genuinely believes that S can do A
Sincerity Condition S willingly intends to do A of his own volition
Illocutionary Intention S reflexively-intends that U be a reason for H to
believe that S willingly undertakes the obligation to
do A and intends to do A
۷۲
Chapter Four
Data Collection and Analysis
4.1 Introduction
This chapter attempts to investigate Iraqi EFL undergraduate learners'
responses in using speech act of prohibition. However, this investigation will
involve the learners' abilities to distinguish ''SA of Prohibition'' from other
related ones, namely, Command, Advice, Warning, Request and Threatening, at
the recognition level. Additionally, there will be an assessment of the learners'
use of the strategies of expressing SA of prohibition at the production level, and
this assessment will be done in relation to what native English speakers respond
in given situations. The chapter starts with describing the methods used for
collecting the data.
4.2 Data Collection
4.2.1 The Subjects:
The study involves one hundred EFL undergraduate fourth-year students
randomly chosen from Department of English, College of Education of
University of Kerbala. The subjects at this level range in age between 22-24.
They are native speakers of Arabic having the same EFL background. The
reason behind choosing fourth year students is that they are supposed to be the
advanced learners of English before graduation.
Besides, a control group represented by ten native English speakers is
formed. The subjects of this group are official employees in British Embassy
in Baghdad and range in age between (22-24). They all have bachelor degrees
in different specializations and speak BBC accent. Their role, however, is
limited to Part 2 of the test.
۷۳
4.2.2 The Test

The subjects are asked to participate in a two part test (See Appendix 2).
The first part consists of fifty situations. It takes the form of a recognition test to
reveal the subjects' ability to recognize the speech act of prohibition and
distinguish it from other related spech acts as commands, advice, warnings,
requests and threatenings when choices are given. The subjects are required to
choose the correct choice from a variety of options.
The second part of the test is intended to elicit information about the
students' abilities, at the production level, to issue the speech act of prohibition
according to certain contextual factors. Thus, it is introduced as an elicitation
procedure (Cf. Corder, 1982: 61, for instance). This part contains twenty-five
situations. The respondents, thus, are asked to issue the SA of prohibition
according to different situations. This is done deliberately to identify the most
common strategy used by them to express the speech act of prohibition.
The situations in both parts of the test are adopted from various sources.
The contextual factors that are taken into account in building up these situations
include status, i.e., superiority, equality and inferiority of position, social
distance, i.e., familiarity and unfamiliarity, and whether the power relationship
is solidary or non-solidary (See 2.9). As mentioned earlier in (2.7 and 2.8), the
intonational and stress factors are intended to be included in building up the
test.
The test requires two basic characteristics, i.e., validity and reliability;
otherwise the accuracy statements with reference to it will be questionable
(Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 243).
4.2.2.1 Test Validity
Test validity refers to the degree to which the test actually measures what it
claims to measure. It is also the extent to which inferences, conclusions and
decisions made on the basis of test scores are appropriate and meaningful
(Heaton, 1988: 162).
۷٤
Test validity is of two types: content validity and face validity. Content
validity is a non-statistical type of validity which involves ''the systematic
examination of the test content to determine whether it is a representative
sample of the behaviour domain to be measured'' (Crocker and Algina, 1986:
114). It depends on a theoretical basis for assuming if a test is assessing all
domain of a criterion.
A test has content validity built into it by careful selection of which items to
include. Items are chosen so that they can comply with the test specification
which is drawn up through a thorough examination of the subject domain (ibid).
To ensure content validity, the test is carefully constructed so as to give no
space for testing the SAs other than the one intended to be involved, i.e., SA of
prohibition and differentiating it from other related ones like commands, advice,
warnings, requests and threatenings. It also ensured that the informants are
familiar with the SAs mentioned. Their familiarity of issuing utterances in
English and expressing the SAs like apology and greeting starts at the
secondary stages where they learn to use different communicative functions.
The subjects receive further training in this respect in their sixth year of
secondary school where they are introduced to certain functions of language
such as obligation, prohibition, warning, request, certainty, permission,
probability, etc. with various strategies for each function (See Book 8 of NECI).
Their knowledge of the SAs increases further through lessons of
''conversation'' and ''language'' in their undergraduate study (See Situational
Dialogues and Breakthrough 2). Moreover, all these practices are enhanced by
means of classroom communicative encounters, i.e., communication in English
between the students themselves on the one hand and their teachers on the other
hand.
As for face validity, it is related to the way the test looks to the subjects, test
administrators and the like (Harris, 1969: 7). To achieve this end, the test was
exposed to a jury of experts (See Appendix 3). Every member of the jury was
۷٥
handed a copy of the test with a letter requesting them to give their opinions of
the suitability of the techniques and items used and suggest any necessary
changes or modifications (See Appendix 1). The techniques and the items used
are all approved by the jury members apart from few suggested modifications
of some items. The final version of the test was also shown to a number of
native British speakers who expressed their approval of all the parts of the test.
As a result, the test was given to the sample of the pilot study.
4.2.2.2 Test Reliability
Test reliability refers to the degree to which a test is consistent and stable in
measuring what is intended to measure. A test is reliable if it is consistent
within itself and across time. This means that reliability can be achieved once
its scores remain relatively stable on repeated attempts, i.e., from one
administration to another (Harrison, 1983: 11).
One method of estimating test reliability is test-retest (Harris, 1969: 15).
Thus, a sample of the subjects was exposed to the test twice within three days.
This sample consisted of twenty five fourth-year students chosen randomly
from Department of English, College of Education, University of Kerbala.
The correlation between the scores of the two tests was computed by using
the Kurder-Richardson which has the following formula:
R= (1- )
where
R = reliability
N = the number of items in the test
m = the mean of the test score
X = the standard deviation of the test scores (See Appendix 4)
The computation of the results has yielded that the reliability of the test
amounted to 82% which is a highly positive correlation (Heaton, 1988: 164).
۷٦
4.2.2.3 The Pilot Study

The significance of the pilot study is that it indicates the necessary time to
be provided for the test and discloses the effects in individual items that are not
noticed when writing the test.
In order to investigate the effectiveness of data collecting techniques, the
appropriateness of the situations as well as exploring any problems that may
interfere with the proper administration of the data collection tool, a random
sample consisting of twenty five fourth-year students, Department of English,
College of Education, University of Kerbala was involved in an advance sitting
for the test in 17/ April /2012.
The results of this study have been found to confirm the effectiveness of the
techniques and the appropriateness of the test items. Also, it shows that the time
limit of two hours is sufficient to allow all students to finish their task.
Moreover, this study has shown the necessity of supplying the subjects with
some explanations in Arabic to some situations in the test that proved to be
problematic for them. Accordingly, the tester compiled an English-Arabic
glossary that explained some of the new notions and vocabulary items to ensure
satisfactory performance in the main test during its final administration (See
appendix 2)
4.2.2.4 Administration of the Task
The main test was carried out in 24 April 2012. The subjects were given two
hours. When the subjects sat for the test, they were given certain instructions of
how to answer the questions. What they were required to do in response to the
test was demonstrated to them in Arabic, as recommended by Olshtain and
Cohen (1983: 32) who believe that the respondents' native language should be
used to make them fully understand what they are required to do. Besides, they
(ibid) believe that giving instructions in the target language may bias the
subjects towards using certain expressions, the matter which surely affects the
results of the study. Additionally, they were assured that the aim behind the test
۷۷
is for research purposes and have nothing to do with their marks. In order to
save time and effort, they were asked to write their responses on the papers of
the test. To avoid any embarrassment, they were asked not to mention their
names on the test sheet.
4.2.2.5 Methods of Analysis
4.2.2.5.1 Analysis of Part 1
Part 1 of the test can be described as an objective one since its scoring
scheme neither depends on the personal opinion of the subject himself / herself ,
nor on the subjective judgment of the scorer.
To ensure an objective scoring of the test, a scoring scheme has been
adopted. Each participant, in part 1, is required to choose only one correct
option at the recognition level.
However, each test paper is scored out of 100. Scores are equally distributed
over the items of Part 1 i.e. the recognition level. Two marks are given to each
correct answer and zero mark for the incorrect one. Spelling mistakes are
ignored. The items that are left without answer by the subjects are also given
zero mark because they give the impression that the subjects fail to give the
appropriate answer. The following table illustrates the scoring scheme adopted
for the test:
Table (9)
Distribution of the Scores of the Test
Number of Test Numbers of items Scores Percentage
Part 1 50 100 100
50 100 100
Total
۷۸
In order to measure the central tendency of the subjects, the mean score has
been adopted as a statistical device. In this respect, Butler (1985: 30) mentions
that the mean score is the average subject response to an item. It is formed by
adding up the number of the points earned by all subjects for the item, and
dividing that total by the number of the subjects.
Moreover, Mousavi (1999: 213) states that the mean is the most commonly
used and most widely applicable measure of the central tendency of a
distribution. He illustrates that in a following formula:
X1 + X2 + X3 +….+ Xn ƩX
X҇ = which is usually written as X҇ =
N N
where
X҇ = the mean
X = raw score
Ʃ = the sum of
N = the number of cases.
In addition to the scoring scheme which is mentioned in Table 9, a rating
scale of the learners' performance at part 1 has been adopted. This scale is based
on Al-Hindawy's (1999: 136) modified version of Caroll's (1980: 134) scale.
This scale is illustrated in Table (10).
۷۹
Table (10)
Assessment Scale of Learner's Recognition Ability (Al-Hindawy's,
1999: 136, Modified Version)
Band Learner's recognition ability
90 – 100 Expert user. Accurately understands English system.
80 – 89 Very good user. Often approaches bilingual competence.
70 – 79 Good user. Would cope in most situations in English.
60 – 69 Competent user. Can cope well with most situations but will have
occasional misunderstandings.
50 – 59 Modest user. Manages in general to communicate but often has
inaccurate understandings.
40 – 49 Marginal user. Is not easy to communicate with.
30 – 39 Extremely limited user. Receptive skills do not allow continuous

communication.
20 – 29 Intermittent user. Understanding occurs only sporadically.
0 - 19 Non-user. Uncertain recognition of which type of language is

being used.
The results of the subjects at this level are rendered into percentages which
are then compared with each other.
4.2.2.5.2 Analysis of Part 2
The model of the SA of prohibition's strategies in Chapter Two (2.10) is
used for analysing the type of strategies adopted by the subjects and native
English speakers. The performance of the learners is then compared with the
performance of the control group after rendering the results into percentages.
All the types of analyses are carried out in terms of the three parameters: status,
social distance and solidarity of power.
۸۰
4.3 Data Analysis

4.3.1 Part 1
4.3.1.1 Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition
The scoring of the learners' performance at the recognition level illustrates
that the learners are more influenced by the linguistic realizations of the SAs
than by the contextual factors influencing those realizations. This is obvious
from the fact that they are successful in recognizing SAs made through direct
constructions, see Table (11), more than in recognizing SAs performed via
indirect constructions (See Tables 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ).
The subjects tend to associate a certain linguistic device with a particular
SA, for instance, they associate certain polite expressions like: ''excuse me, if
you don't mind , etc. with the SA of request. This tendency could be attributed
to the fact that the informants' exposure to SAs in their pre-university study was
much more limited to the linguistic forms of realizing them (See Book 8 in
NECI). Their exposure to the contextual factors take the form of simple notes in
Book 8 only, the text book for the sixth secondary stage, suggesting the type of
situation, i.e., formal or informal, for using SAs. Thus, it could be argued that
the learners do not reveal enough appreciation of the contextual factors
governing the issuance of the SAs.
Concerning the various strategies used in this section, Table (11) shows
how the subjects recognize the direct prohibitive constructions, i.e., explicit
performative expressions than the indirect ones, i.e., an imperative construction,
a negative imperative construction, etc. that can express the different kinds of
SAs . In all tables, the results are arranged from high to low percentages:
۸۱
Table (11)
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition Expressed by an Explicit
Performative Expression
Performative No. of Percentage

Expressions Item of Correct Responses
Prevent 47 87
Forbid 34 77
In Table (11) above, it is obvious that the subjects recognize some perfomative
expressions better than other ones. When there is a performative verb such as
''prevent'', "forbid" or a perfomative expression which is more familiar to them,
they can recognize the SA intended better than the ones which are issued by
less familiar performative expressions. Table (11) illustrates that the percentage
of the incorrect responses to item No. (47) is (13%) and to item No. (34) is
(23%). To use the mean score as an indicator, the learners' success amounts to
(82 %). If we put the learners' performance on Caroll's scale, it can be described
as "very good users".
The utterance of the item in Table (12) presents indirect prohibitive
constructions by the use of imperative construction rather than by performative
expressions. Recognizing the intended SA successfully requires a full
understanding of the contextual elements governing the issuance of the SA.
Tables (12)
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition Expressed by an Imperative
Construction
Imperative No. of Percentage

Construction Item of Correct
responses
Keep out 14 31
۸۲
For example, the verb ''keep out'' in item No. (14) is used to express indirect SA
of prohibition. Misinterpretation of the contextual factors will lead to inability
to recognize this intended SA and this is apparent from the percentage of the
correct responses which reveal the percentage of the incorrect answers that were
obtained by the subjects as (69%). To use the mean score as an indicator, the
learners' success amounts to (31%) which indicates their central tendency.
However, the learners' performance in this regard according to Caroll's scale
can be referred as ''extremely limited users''.
Table (13) below shows how subjects recognize speech act of prohibition
performed by a negative imperative construction. It is apparent that their
recognition of the negative imperative constructions is better than that of
imperative verbs since the former is characterized by the presence of the
particle ''not'' which is considered as an indicator to the speech act of
prohibition.
Tables (13)
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition Expressed by a Negative
Imperative Construction
Negative Imperative No. of Percentage

Constructions Item of Correct
responses
Don't touch.... 1 60
Don't wear... 37 60
Don't you quarrel…. 48 55
Don't disturb. 41 47
Don't be…… 11 45
Don't laugh... 19 43
Don't make…, can you? 14 34
Don't make…, will you? 4 19

۸۳
The subjects seem to have a tendency to associate certain linguistic patterns

with a particular SA. The items No. (1) and (37) reveal the percentage of the
incorrect responses of the subjects as (40%). Item No. (48) clarifies the
percentage of the incorrect responses of the subjects as (45%). Item No. (41)
illustrates the percentage of the incorrect responses of the subjects as (53%).
Item No. (11) shows the subjects' incorrect responses as (55%). Item No. (19)
displays the percentage of the incorrect answers as (57%). Item No. (14)
manifests the percentage of the incorrect answers as (66%) and finally, the item
No. (4) denotes the percentage of the incorrect answers of the subjects as
(81%).
Table (13) illustrates how the subjects obtained high scores when the
speech act of prohibition is introduced by a negative imperative construction as
the items No. (1), (37) and (48) while in items No. (14) and (4) although that
they are negative imperative constructions, they contain tag questions which
affect the behaviour of the subjects and this is apparent from the result they
obtained. To use the mean score as an indicator, the learners' success amounts
to (45.37%). If we place the learners' performance on Carroll's scale, it can be
described as ''marginal users''.
The intended meaning of the utterances in Table (14) below, displays the
subjects' recognition of the speech act of prohibition introduced by the verbs
''avoid'', ''stop'' and ''not allowed''.
۸٤
Tables (14)
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition Expressed by the Verbs
''Avoid'', ''Stop'' and ''Not allowed''
The Verbs ''Avoid'', ''Stop'' No. of Percentage

Item of Correct responses
and ''Not allowed''
…. STOP taking…. 24 76
…are not allowed to park... 9 70
Avoid smoking… 17 38
Avoid entering…. 3 36
Here, about half of the subjects 55% has recognized the speech act of
prohibition expressed by the verbs ''avoid'', ''stop'' and ''not allowed''
successfully. The reason may be assigned to the fact that the subject do not have
enough awareness of the contextual elements concerning the above situations.
However, the percentage of the incorrect responses of the subjects to items No.
(24), (9), (17) and (3) are (24%), (30%), (62%), (64%) respectively. To issue
the SA of prohibition, the speaker should have more power (in status) on the
hearer. For instance, in the situation No. (3), the speaker prohibits his little
brother who enters to speaker's room without permission and reads his private
diary. That is why the speaker angrily speaks with his brother and prevents him
from entering his room without permission. Additionally, intonation and stress
element are considered as important elements to interpret the intended speech
act as the situation No. (24). To use the mean score as an indicator, the learners'
success amounts to (55%). If we put the learners' performance on Carroll's
scale, it can be described as ''modest users''.
In Table (15) below, the Situation No. (22), the performative expression
takes the following pattern: Be+ Not+ To+ Infinitive construction.
۸٥
Tables (15)
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition Expressed by
Be+ Not+ To+ Infinitive Construction
Be+ Not+ To+ Infinitive No. of Percentage

Construction
…are not to come… 22 42
The utterance above clarifies the percentage of the incorrect responses of the
subjects as (58%) and this result reveals the inability of the learners to
recognize and distinguish the speech act of prohibition from related SAs. Their
success according to the mean score amounts to (42%). If we place the learners'
performance on Carroll's scale, it can be described as ''marginal users''.
Table (16) below illustrates the indirect prohibitive constructions introduced
by reported speech construction.
Tables (16)
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition Expressed by
Reported Speech Construction
Reported Speech No. of Percentage

Constructions
Entering is prohibited. 45 73
Cheating is prevented. 39 67
Table (16) clarifies the percentage of the incorrect responses of the subjects
to item No. (45) as (27%), to item No. (39) as (33%). To use the mean score,
the subjects' success in this regard amounts to (70%). This reveals how the
subjects associate between the reported speech expressions and the speech act
of prohibition. If we put the learners' performance on Carroll's scale, it can be
described as ''good users''.
۸٦
The intended meaning of the utterance in Table (17) below displays the
subjects' recognition of the speech act of prohibition introduced by brief
announcements and block language expressions.
Tables (17)
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition Expressed by Brief
Announcements and Block Language Expressions
Brief Announcements and Block No. of Percentage

Language Expressions
No entrance. 43 67
Table (17) above illustrates that the learners recognize the intended speech
act successfully and this is obvious from the percentage of the incorrect answers
of the subjects which is (33%). To use the mean score as an indicator, the
learners' success amounts to (67%). If we place the learners' performance on
Caroll's scale, it can be described as ''competent users''.
The utterances of the items in Table (18) below are indirect prohibitive
constructions by the use of a modal verb strategy. The understanding of the
contextual factors governing the issuance of the SA of prohibition is a very
significant element to recognize it successfully.
۸۷
Table (18)
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition Expressed by a Modal Verb
Modal Verbs No. of Percentage

Item of Correct Responses
… must not … 27 61
… must not … 6 55
... may not … 28 53
''Thou shalt not kill'' 32 50

which means…must not kill.
… cannot … 30 49
Table (18) manifests subjects' recognition of the SA of prohibition

expressed by a modal verb strategy. The percentages of the incorrect responses
of the subjects to items No. (27), (6), (28), (32) and (30) are (39%, 45%, 47%,
50%, 51%) respectively. These results illustrate that 46.4 % of the learners can't
recognize the SA of prohibition successfully and this is because that they can't
understand the contextual factors that govern the issuance of SA of prohibition.
To use the mean score as an indicator, the learners' success amounts to (53.6%).
If we put the learners' performance on Caroll's scale, it can be described as
''modest users''.
4.3.1.2 Subjects' Recognition of the Related Speech Acts
The scoring of the learners' performance at the recognition level to identify
some related speech acts, namely commanding, advising, warning, requesting
and threatening, illustrates that these learners are successful in recognizing the
intended meaning of SAs made through direct constructions, see Table (19),
than in recognizing SAs performed via indirect constructions. This table
manifests subjects' recognition of the SA of command as a related SA.
۸۸
Table (19)
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Command as a Related Speech Act
Utterances No. of The Intended Percentage

Item Meaning of of Correct
SA Responses
The phone! 49 Command 84
The door, can't you hear? 33 Command 60
… want this… 2 Command 55
Leave me … 20 Command 44
Table (19) displays that the subjects can recognize the speech act of
command and their recognition is good and this is apparent from the results of
their responses. To use the mean score as an indicator, the learners' success
amounts to (60.75%). If we place the learners' performance on Caroll's scale, it
can be described as ''competent users''.
Table (20) below illustrates how the subjects recognize the speech act of
advice as a related SA to the SA of prohibition.
Table (20)
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Advice as a Related Speech Act

SA Responses
Why don't you take… 7 Advice 91
I advise you …. 29 Advice 88
It is suitable for you … 35 Advice 88
Have some rest……? 16 Advice 72
Isn't good for you … 42 Advice 69

۸۹
The percentages of the correct answers of the subjects, in Table (20)

above, reveal the recognition of the subjects to the SA of advice. In this respect,
the learners can identify the SA of advice from the SA of prohibition and
others. However, this is apparent from their responses. To use the mean score,
the subjects' success in this regard amounts to (81.6%). If we put the learners'
performance on Caroll's scale, it can be described as ''very good users''.
The intended meaning of the utterances in Table (21) below displays the
subjects' recognition of the speech act of warning.
Table (21)
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Warning as a Related Speech Act

SA Responses
… will be fired…if.. 5 Warning 85
Don't go…because … 12 Warning 78
Look out! ….. 50 Warning 74
If you put …, she'll scream. 26 Warning 56
Watch out for … 40 Warning 35
The percentages of the correct responses of the subjects, in Table (21)

above, illustrate that 65.6 % of the learners recognize the intended SA and this
is due to the fact that they do not have sufficient awareness of the contextual
factors that govern the issuance of the SA of warning. To use the mean score as
an indicator, the learners' success amounts to (65.6%). If we put the learners'
performance on Caroll's scale, it can be described as ''competent users''.
Table (22) below shows the subjects' recognition of the fourth related SA
i.e., request.
۹۰
Table (22)
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Request as a Related Speech Act

SA Responses
Would you mind … 21 Request 96
Excuse me, … 13 Request 93
Will you kindly give me ..., 23 Request 90

please?
Please, mom,…. 8 Request 89
Will you please… 36 Request 85
The utterances of the items No. (21), (13), (23), (8) and (36), in Table
(22) above, reveal that the learners associate certain polite expressions with the
speech act of request and this is apparent from the percentages of their correct
responses to the utterances. To use the mean score as an indicator, the learners'
success amounts to (90.6%). If we place the learners' performance on Caroll's
scale, it can be described as ''expert users''.
Table (23) below illustrates the subjects' recognition of the fifth related act
to the SA of prohibition which is the SA of threatening.
۹۱
Table (23)
Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Threat as a Related Speech Act
Utterances No. of The Percentage

Item Intended of Correct
Meaning of Responses
SA
If you don't give …., I'll shoot … 46 Threat 89
See Juliet and I'll… 10 Threat 87
I swear ….kill you if … 31 Threat 87
Do that…and … 18 Threat 77
If they make …, I'll make… 25 Threat 67
WHO are YOU to suggest…? 38 Threat 47
The percentages of the correct responses of the learners, in Table (23)

above, manifest that they identify the intended SA successfully. Their success
according to the mean score amounts to (75.66%). If we put the learners'
performance on Caroll's scale, it can be described as ''good users''.
The pervious Tables illustrate that recognizing the SA of prohibition
realized by the indirect prohibitive constructions is more difficult than
recognizing it when realized by the direct ones because there are no (IFIDs) the
subjects can appeal to to recognize the SA of prohibition and identify it from
other relevant related SAs.
Consequently, one can say that the subjects recognize the SA of prohibition
realized by the direct prohibitive construction better than the indirect ones. This
is supported by the percentage of the mean score of the direct prohibitive
construction which is (82%) in comparison to that of the indirect ones which is
(51.99%). So, this verifies the first hypothesis mentioned in Chapter One of this
study which states that Iraqi EFL learners recognize explicit prohibitive
expressions better than implicit ones. In addition to these percentages, Tables
۹۲
(12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17) and the (18) illustrate the percentage of the
mean score of the indirect prohibitive construction 51.99% which verifies the
fourth hypothesis that those learners also misinterpret SA of prohibition
with other relevant speech acts at the recognition level particularly
commanding, advising, warning, requesting and threatening.
Generally, the scores of the overall performance can be used to rate the
learners' abilities at the recognition level in terms of the assessment scale
introduced in Table (10) above as described in Table (24) below:
Table (24)
Learners' Performance at the Recognition Level in terms of Percentage of
Success
Band Scale of the learners' ability Percentage
90-100 Expert User 8%
80-89 Very good user 10%
70-79 Good user 28%
60-69 Competent user 26 %
50-59 Modest user 10 %
40-49 Marginal user 10 %
30-39 Extremely user 5%
20-29 Extremely limited 3%
0-19 Non-user 0%
۹۳
4.3.2 Part 2: Analysis of the SA of Prohibition's Strategies

4.3.2.1 Overall Performance
The analysis of the data with respect to strategies used to express the SA of
prohibition reveals that a variety of strategies are employed by the subjects.
However, some of them especially direct construction, as explicit performative
expressions, are widely used while others such as indirect ones are rarely appeal
to.
The model mentioned in Chapter Two (See 2.10) is used for analysing the
type of strategies adopted by the subjects and native English speakers in the
following section.
4.3.2.2 The Use of SA of Prohibition's Strategies in terms of the
Type of Situation
The situations requiring the subjects to issue the SA of prohibition in Part 2
of the test (See Appendix 2) are designed to fall into three types in terms of the
factors of solidarity, status and distance. These three types can be described as
follows:
A. The speaker talks to a familiar inferior with whom s/he has a solidary
power relationship.
B. The speaker talks to a familiar inferior with whom s/he has a non-
solidary power relationship.
C. The speaker talks to a familiar equal with whom s/he has a solidary
power relationship.
4.3.2.2.1 Analysis of the Use of the SA of Prohibition's Strategies
in Type A Situations
The situations categorized within this type are represented by Situations (1),
(3), (4), (5), (8), (9), (13), (15), (19), (21), (22), and (24), (See Appendix 2). The
situations can be described as follows:
۹٤
Sit. 1: The eldest brother prevents one of his brothers who is not a good
swimmer from swimming in a rough sea.
Sit. 3: A good father prohibits his son from smoking cigarettes.
Sit. 4: A brother prevents his younger brother from using his laptop.
Sit. 5: A sister enjoins her naughty brother from playing with knives.
Sit. 8: A father angrily forbids his eldest son from beating his little brother.
Sit. 9: A person prevents his little sister from playing with matches.
Sit. 13: A father enjoins his younger son from driving his private car.
Sit. 15: The eldest brother furiously forbids his little sister from using his
private computer.
Sit. 19: A mother prevents her eldest daughter from going to the birthday party
of her friend.
Sit. 21: A sister enjoins her little sister from playing with her mother's personal
things during her absence.
Sit. 22: A father forbids his naughty sons from quarrelling with each other.
Sit. 24: A good father prohibits his son from drinking alcohol.
Table (25) below describes the subjects' performance of the SA of
prohibition in terms of the strategies presented in percentages. The analysis
reveals that NESs allow for an imperative construction and modal verb
strategies to appear in their performance when issuing the SA of prohibition.
Sit. 1- NESs
(1) Bob, stay away from the sea! It is too rough for you today.
(2) You should stay out of the water today, the sea is rough!
Iraqi learners' behaviour in the same situation reveals that they employ an
explicit performative expression and negative imperative construction
strategies. Examples are the following:
Sit. 1- Iraqi learners
(3) I prevent you from swimming.
(4) Don't swim today, the sea is rough.
۹٥
Their use of the above strategies can be taken as a strong indicator that it is
deviant from that of the natives.
In Situation (3), NESs manifest two different kinds of behaviour by
depending on the indirect prohibitive constructions: imperative construction
strategy and the strategy of verbs like ''avoid'', ''stop'' and ''not allowed''.
However, they prefer to employ the imperative construction strategy more than
the other one for issuing the SA of prohibition and they appear so polite by
using the imperative construction strategy and after that they comment on the
danger of smoking.
Sit. 3- NESs
(5) Put that cigarette out! Smoking is not good for you.
(6) Stop smoking. It is bad for your health.
By contrast, the percentages of the strategies used by Iraqi learners are
distributed over an explicit performative expression and negative imperative
construction strategies. Examples are the following:
(7) I prohibit you from smoking! Ever!!
(8) Don't smoke a gain.
This indicates that the Iraqi learners also reveal that they violate the rules of
English use in this type of situation since they employ an explicit performative
expression strategy which is not appealed to by the natives who appear more
polite in their using such strategy
As for situation (4), both groups use the same type of strategies, a
negative imperative construction and modal verb strategies to issue the SA of
prohibition. Examples are the following:
Sit. 4- NESs
(9) Don't touch my laptop!
(10) You cannot use my laptop!!
۹٦

(11) Don't use my laptop.
(12) You cannot use my laptop.
Examples (11) and (12) above manifest that Iraqi learners are aware to the
use of a negative imperative construction and a modal verb strategies
respectively as native speakers do. Thus, they signal an aspect of appropriate
use when compared to NESs' performance (examples 9 and 10).
Table (25)
Percentage of Using SA of Prohibition's Strategies in Situations Type (A)
Where a Speaker Talks to a Familiar Inferior with Whom S/he Has a
Solidary Power Relationship
Direct
Prohibitive Indirect Prohibitive constructions
Construction
Explicit
Sit. The Verbs
Group Be+ Not+
No performative Negative ''avoid'',
Imperative To+
imperative ''stop'' and
Performative Modal Construction Infinitive
Construction ''not
construction
expression allowed''
Iraqi EFLs 65 35 - - -
1
NESs - - 20 80 - -
Iraqi EFLs 55 45 - - - -
3
NESs - - - 90 10 -
Iraqi EFLs - 70 30 - - -
4
NESs - 60 40 - - -
Iraqi EFLs 100 - - - - -

5
NESs - - - 40 - 60
Iraqi EFLs 50 50 - - - -
8
NESs - - - 30 70 -
۹۷
Iraqi EFLs - 100 - - -

9
NESs - 100 - - -
Iraqi EFLs 100 - - - -

13
NESs - - - 100 -

15
NESs - - 100 - -
19
NESs - - 100 - -
Iraqi EFLs - 100 - - -

21
NESs - 40 60 - -
22
NESs - - - 100 -

24
NESs 100 - - - -
In situation (5), as Table (25) reveals, NESs show more preference to Be+
Not+ To+ Infinitive construction strategy than imperative construction strategy
for issuing the SA of prohibition. The following are some illustrative examples:
Sit. 5- NESs
(13) You are not to play with knives!!
(14) Stay a way from the kitchen! You' ve banned from
there.
By contrast, the learners reveal full preference for explicit performative
expression strategy in this type of situation. Examples are the following:
۹۸

(15) I prevent you from playing with knives.
(16) I forbid you to play with knives.
Hence, Iraqi EFL learners this time do not reveal any tendency to use the Be+
Not+ To+ Infinitive construction strategy which is allowed to appear by the
natives.
In situation (8), the analysis reveals that NESs prefer the verbs ''avoid'',
''stop'' and ''not allowed'' strategy to an imperative construction strategy to issue
the SA of prohibition.
Sit. 8- NESs
(17) Stop hurting your brother!
(18) Stay away from your brother!
Iraqi learners' appeal to a negative imperative construction strategy and an
explicit performative expression strategy which are not present in the natives'
performance manifests their inappropriateness employment. Their use of the
imperative construction strategy is banned than that of the natives which can be
taken as an indicator of their weak awareness of using this strategy.
(19) I prevent you from beating your brother.
(20) Don't beat your brother.
The analysis also reveals that NESs show full preference to a negative
imperative construction strategy to issue the SA of prohibition in Situation (9).
Sit. 9- NESs
(21) Don't touch these matches.
(22) Don't touch the matches! They are dangerous.
As for Iraqi learners', the analysis of the data reveals that they employ a
negative imperative construction strategy which is appeal to by the natives.
۹۹
Thus, they manifest awareness of using the negative imperative construction

strategy which signal the aspect of appropriate use.
(23) Don't play with matches.
(24) Don't play with matches. They are dangerous.
In responding to Situation (13), the members of the control group show full
agreement on the choice of the verbs ''avoid'', ''stop'' and ''not allowed'' strategy
for issuing the SA of prohibition in such situation.
Sit. 13- NESs
(25) You are not allowed to drive my private car!!
(26) You absolutely are not allowed to steal anyone's
car!!
Iraqi EFL learners' behaviour in this situation illustrates that they employ
and prefer an explicit performative expression strategy which is not appeal to
the natives. This indicates that they signal an inappropriate use of this strategy
in comparison to the natives. Here are some illustrative examples:
(27) I prohibit you to drive any car ever!
(28) I prevent you from driving. Do you understand
me?
Concerning Situation (15), NESs show full preference to a modal verb
strategy for issuing the SA of prohibition.
Sit. 15- NESs
(29) You cannot use my private computer.
(30) This is my work computer! You cannot touch
it ever again.
By contrast, Iraqi learners employ an explicit performative expression
strategy.
۱۰۰

(31) I prevent you from touching my private
computer.
(32) I prohibit you to use my computer.
The comparison above indicates that Iraqi learners' performance does not
match that of the natives which indicates a lack of awareness of what
appropriately to do in such a type of situation. This might be a reflection of
their behaviour in their native language as they use an explicit performative
expression strategy in such a situation.
In Situation (19), NESs manifest one kind of behaviour when they respond
to such situation. They employ a modal verb strategy to issue the SA of
prohibition.
Sit. 19- NESs
(33) You absolutely must not go to the party.
(34) You cannot go to the party today.
As far as Iraqi learners' performance in this situation is concerned, they
prefer to use an explicit performative expression and negative imperative
construction strategies. The examples are the following:
(35) I prohibit you to go to the party.
(36) Don't go to the party.
This indicates that the learners' behaviour here is inappropriate since it does
not match that of the natives.
The results in Table (25) above manifest that NESs appeal to a modal verb
and negative imperative construction strategies to express the SA of prohibition
in Situation (21). The natives prefer the former to the latter.
۱۰۱
Sit. 21- NESs

(37) You cannot play with mom's personal things
while she's away.
(38) Don't touch things that don't belong to you.
employ the same strategy (i.e. a negative imperative construction strategy)
which is appeal to by the natives.
(39) Don't play with my mother's personal things.
(40) Don't do that again.
The analysis, in Situation (22), reveals that NESs have full preference to
use the verbs ''avoid'', ''stop'' and ''not allowed'' strategy to express the SA of
prohibition.
Sit. 22- NESs
(41) Stop quarrelling!
(42) Stop quarrelling boys!
For Iraqi learners, they employ an explicit performative expression and
negative imperative construction strategies which can be taken as an indicator
of their unawareness of that which is used by the natives.
(43) I prohibit you to quarrel again.
(44) Don't quarrel again boys.
The learners' employment of an explicit performative expression and
negative imperative construction strategies is inappropriate since it is not
employed by the natives.
In Situation (24), NESs employ an explicit performative expression strategy
to issue the SA of prohibition.
۱۰۲
Sit. 24- NESs

(45) I prevent you from being late again.
(46) I prohibit you to behave like that.
As far as Iraqi learners' performance is concerned, they also show full
agreement on the choice of an explicit performative expression strategy.
(47) I prevent you from being late.
(48) I prohibit you to be late.
This indicates that the learners' behaviour here is appropriate enough since it
matches that of the natives.
One can conclude that in Type A, the learners show a greater preference for
using an explicit performative expression (82%) and negative imperative
construction strategies (45.37%) than other types of strategies. However, this
verifies the second and third hypotheses that is mentioned in Chapter One of
this study which state respectively that Iraqi learners use explicit utterances
to issue the speech act of prohibition better than implicit ones and these
learners show a greater tendency towards using a particular prohibition
strategy than others.
in Type B Situations
This type of situations includes (11) situations of Part 2 of the test: (2), (6),
(7), (11), (12), (14), (17), (18), (20), (23) and (25), (See Appendix 2). The
following is a description of each:
Sit. 2: A teacher prevents a student who always quarrels with his classmates.
Sit. 6: A boss of a company forbids his driver from driving fast.
Sit. 7: A headmistress of a school prohibits a girl student who is wearing
strange clothes and that is against the rules.
۱۰۳
Sit. 11: A company manager enjoins his secretary from entering to the meeting
room while meeting in progress.
Sit. 12: A bus driver prevents his second from getting off at a traffic light which
is against the law.
Sit. 14: A teacher during the lecture prohibits a talkative student, who can't stop
herself from talking, from speaking.
Sit. 17: Two guards at prison gate forbid two persons, who want to enter, from
entering.
Sit. 18: A sharp jailor prevents a prisoner, who has been deprived of food as a
penalty, from speaking.
Sit. 20: A manger of an office prohibits the serviceman from being careless.
Sit. 23: A policeman enjoins a man from stopping his car in a place where cars
are not allowed to stop.
Sit. 25: A stiff manager prevents his employees from being late.
The analysis of the responses to Situation (2) manifests that NESs allow
for verbs like ''avoid'', ''stop'' and ''not allowed'' strategy to appear in their
performance for issuing SA of prohibition.
Sit. 2- NESs
(49) Stop fighting!
( 50) Stop quarrelling and behave yourself.
Iraqi EFL learners' behaviour in the same situation reveals that they appeal to
an explicit performative expression and negative imperative construction
strategies to issue the SA of prohibition.
(51) I forbid you to quarrel with your
classmates again.
(52) Don't quarrel again with your classmates.
۱۰٤
Table (26)
Percentage of Using SA of Prohibition's Strategies in Situations Type (B)
Where a Speaker Talks to a Familiar Inferior with Whom S/he Has a Non-
Direct
Construction
Explicit
Sit. Brief The Verbs
Group Indirect
No performative Negative announcements ''avoid'',
speech
imperative and block ''stop''
Performative Modal constructi
construction language and ''not
on
expression expression allowed''
Iraqi EFLs 50 50 - - - -
2
NESs - - - - 100 -
Iraqi EFLs 70 - 30 - - -
6
NESs - 100 - - - -
Iraqi EFLs 100 - - - - -

7
NESs - - - - 100 -
Iraqi EFLs 100 - - - - -

11
NESs - 40 - 25 35 -
Iraqi EFLs - - 100 - - -

12
NESs - - 100 - - -
Iraqi EFLs 90 - 10 - - -
14
NESs - - 20 - 80 -
Iraqi EFLs 100 - - - - -

17
NESs - 70 - - - 30
18 Iraqi EFLs 60 40 - - - -
۱۰٥
NESs - - 100 - - -
Iraqi EFLs 50 - 50 - - -
20
NESs - 100 - - - -
Iraqi EFLs 100 - - - - -

23
NESs - - 50 - 50 -
Iraqi EFLs 60 40 - - - -
25
NESs 50 50 - - - -
In responding to Situation (6), the members of the control group show full
agreement on the choice of a negative imperative construction strategy
indicating that it is the most acceptable one for issuing the SA of prohibition in
this type of situation.
Sit. 6- NESs
(53) Don't speed! The roads are slippery.
(54) Don't drive that vehicle like you usually do.
As far as Iraqi learners' performance in this situation, the analysis of the
data reveals that, in addition to the use of an explicit performative expression
strategy, they allow for a modal verb strategy to characterize their behaviour.
The two aspects of the learners' behaviour do not match that of the natives.
(55) I prevent you from driving fast, the
roads are slippery today.
(56) You must not drive fast today.
The analysis of the data, in Table (26) above, manifests that NESs
themselves allow for the verbs ''avoid'', ''stop'' and ''not allowed'' strategy to
appear in their performance when expressing the SA of prohibition in Situation
(7).
Sit. 7- NESs
(57) You are not allowed to wear such clothes!!
۱۰٦
They are not uniform.

(58) You are not allowed to wear such clothes in
a school.
As for Iraqi learners, they prefer to use only an explicit performative
expression strategy.
(59) I prohibit you to wear strange clothes.
(60) I prevent you from wearing strange clothes.
Consequently, the learners' performance is characterized by
inappropriateness because their use of an explicit performative expression
strategy is not preferred by the natives.
Moreover, Table (26) above shows that NESs employ a variety of
strategies, i.e. a negative imperative construction, brief announcements and
block language expression and the verbs ''avoid'', ''stop'', ''not allowed'', to
express the SA of prohibition in Situation (11).
Sit. 11- NESs
(61) Don't enter to the meeting room while
meeting in progress.
(62) No entering to the meeting room while
meeting in progress.
(63) You are not allowed to enter to the meeting
On the other hand, the Iraqi learners appeal to only one strategy, i.e. an
explicit performative expression.
(64) I prevent you from entering to the meeting
(65) I forbid you to enter to the meeting
۱۰۷
The comparison above indicates that Iraqi learners' performance, i.e. the use
of an explicit performative expression strategy, does not match that of the
NESs'. However, they do not seem to be aware that other strategies, those
which are used by the natives, i.e. a negative imperative construction, brief
announcements and block language expression and the verbs ''avoid'', ''stop'',
''not allowed'', can also be employed in this type of situation.
The results in Table (26) above reveal that NESs prefer using a modal verb
strategy to issue the SA of prohibition in Situation (12).
Sit. 12- NESs
(66) I cannot stop here! I should obey road rules
man!
(67) We must not stop here!
employ a modal verb strategy which is present in the natives' performance. So,
their employment is appropriate in this type of situation.
(68) I cannot stop here. It is against the law.
(69) I must not stop here.
Consequently, the learners manifest a appropriateness in using this strategy
since it is used by the natives.
In Situation (14), the analysis reveals that NESs prefer the verbs ''avoid'',
''stop'', ''not allowed'' strategy to a modal verb strategy to issue the SA of
prohibition.
Sit. 14- NESs
(70) Stop talking! Barbara.
(71) Barbara, you must not keep talking!
Iraqi learners' appeal to an explicit performative expression strategy which is
not present in the natives' performance shows their inappropriate employment.
۱۰۸
Their use of a modal verb strategy is less than that of the natives which can be
taken as an indicator of their weak awareness of using this strategy.
(72) I forbid you to stop talking!
(73) You must not behave like that.
The analysis also reveals that NESs show preference to a negative
imperative construction strategy to an indirect speech construction strategy for
issuing the SA of prohibition in Situation (17).
Sit. 17- NESs
(74) Don't enter from this gate men!
(75) This is a prohibited area.
As for Iraqi learners', the analysis of the data reveals that they employ an
explicit performative expression strategy which is not appealed to by the
natives.
(76) I prevent you from entering.
(77) I prohibit you to enter from this gate.
Concerning Situation (18), NESs show full preference to a modal verb
strategy for issuing the SA of prohibition.
Sit. 18- NESs
(78) I cannot do that! You will eat when your
punishment is ended.
(79) I cannot bring you anything now!
By contrast, Iraqi learners employ an explicit performative expression and
negative imperative construction strategies.

(80) We prevent you from eating now.
۱۰۹
(81) Don't speak anything now.

Iraqi EFL learners' behaviour in this situation does not resemble that of the
natives since they employ different strategies.
The analysis, in Situation (20), reveals that NESs have a full preference to
use a negative imperative construction strategy for issuing the SA of
prohibition. Examples are the following:
Sit. 20- NESs
(82) Don't ignore these instructions again!
Pay attention.
(83) Don't ignore my instructions!
For Iraqi learners, they employ an explicit performative expression and
modal verb strategies which can be taken as an indicator of their unawareness
of using a negative imperative strategy that is used by the natives in such
situation.
(84) I forbid you to ignore my instructions.
(85) You must not ignore my instructions.
The learners' employment of these two kinds of strategies is inappropriate
since it is not employed by the natives.
In Situation (23), NESs employ a modal verb strategy to issue the SA of
prohibition. They also appeal to use the verbs ''avoid'', ''stop'' and ''not allowed''
strategy.
Sit. 23- NESs
(86) I can't let you stop here.
(87) You are not allowed to park here.
As far as Iraqi learners' performance is concerned, they also show full
agreement on the choice of an explicit performative expression strategy.
(88) I prevent you from parking here.
۱۱۰
( 89) I forbid you to park here.

This indicates that the learners' behaviour here is inappropriate since it does
not match that of the natives.
The analysis of the data, in Situation (25) , reveals that NESs employ two
kinds of strategies, i.e. an explicit performative expression and a negative
imperative construction, to express the SA of prohibition.
Sit. 25- NESs
(90) I prevent you from being late.
(91) Don't be late for work! It's your
responsibility to be here on time.
As for Iraqi learners', the analysis of the data manifests that they employ
the same strategies, i.e. an explicit performative expression and a negative
imperative construction, which are used by the natives.
(92) I prohibit you from being late again.
(93) Don't be late again.
However, the learners' use of an explicit performative expression and
negative imperative construction strategies is characterized by the right degree
of appropriateness since it is favoured by NESs.
As a result, Iraqi EFL learners in Type B situations show a greater tendency
towards using an explicit performative expression strategy than using other
types of strategies. This accords with the second and third hypotheses
mentioned in Chapter One of this study.
in Type C Situations
The situations which are involved in this type are (10) and (16) in Part 2 of
the test (See Appendix 2). These two situations can be described as follows:
Sit. 10: Someone prevents his friend from swimming in the ocean.
۱۱۱
Sit. 16: A girl prohibits her close friend from having a look at her private
papers.
The strategies used by NESs and Iraqi learners are described in terms of
percentages in Table (27) below. The analysis of the data reveals that NESs
show preference for an imperative construction strategy and a modal verb
strategy to issue the SA of prohibition in Situation (10).
Sit. 10- NESs
(94) Stay out of the water! The water is deep
here.
(95) You cannot swim here because it is dangerous.
By contrast, Iraqi learners employ a variety of strategies such as an explicit
performative expression, a negative imperative construction and the verbs
''avoid'', ''stop'' and ''not allowed''.
(96) I prevent you from swimming in the ocean.
(97) Don't swim in the ocean. The water is very deep.
(98) Avoid swimming in the ocean. It is dangerous.
However, the learners' use of the above strategies is not characterized by the
right degree of appropriateness since it is not favoured by NESs.
Table (27)
۱۱۲
Percentage of Using SA of Prohibition's Strategies in Situations Type (C)

Where a Speaker Talks to a Familiar Equal with Whom S/he Has a
Direct
Construction
Explicit
Sit.
Group
No performative Negative The Verbs ''avoid'',
Imperative
imperative ''stop'' and ''not
Performative Modal Construction
Construction allowed''
expression
Iraqi EFLs 40 35 - - 25
10
NESs - - 30 70 -

16
NESs - 50 50 - -
NESs employ a negative imperative construction strategy and a modal verb

strategy for issuing the SA of prohibition in Situation (16).
Sit. 16- NESs
(99) Don’t touch these papers! They are
private.
(100) Sandy, I can't let you look through
those papers.
Contrarily, Iraqi learners, according to Table (27) above, show full
preference to an explicit performative expression strategy.
(101) I prevent you from looking at these
private papers.
(102) I prohibit you to touch these papers.
۱۱۳
Finally, the analysis of using such strategies in Type C situations verifies the
second and third hypotheses made in Chapter One of this study.
۱۱٤
Chapter Five
Conclusions, Recommendations and Suggestions
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the main conclusions that are based on the analysis
of data performed in the previous chapter. According to these conclusions,
some recommendations are introduced. Suggestions for further studies are
presented.
5.2 Conclusions
The main conclusions introduced in this section are related to Iraqi EFL
undergraduate informants' performance at Part 1 and Part 2 of the test. These
conclusions associated with the subjects' behaviour at Part 2 belong to the
employment of SA of prohibition strategies.
5.2.1 The Learners' Performance at Part 1 of the Test
In order to illustrate the Iraqi EFL undergraduate informants' behaviour at
this level several conclusions can be introduced here:
1. Iraqi EFL learners recognize the speech acts expressed by the direct
constructions better than those expressed by the indirect ones.
2. The learners tend to use explicit utterances that grant prohibition better
than implicit ones.
3. The learners have a tendency in using certain type of strategy i.e.
particularly an explicit performative expression strategy and a
negative imperative construction strategy, than others.
4. The learners are more successful in identifying SA of prohibition issued
by an explicit performative expressions than other types of constructions.
5. The learners' success in identifying the intended SA in Part 1 depends to
a large extent on the degree of the explicitness of the performative
expression used. The more explicit the expression is, the more successful
the learners are in recognizing the intended SA.
۱۱٥
6. As far as the learners' behaviour in relation to the use of direct prohibitive

construction which includes an explicit performative expression strategy
to express the SA of prohibition, their central behaviour tendency in
having 82% classifies them as "very good users" at the recognition level.
7. The learners' ability to identify SA of prohibition expressed by means of
an indirect prohibitive constructions as the imperative construction with
the absence of any performative expression is not good and the learners
can be described, according to the mean score of their responses 31%,
as ''extremely limited users'' in this regard.
8. The learners' performance concerned with their identification of the SA
of prohibition expressed by means of a negative imperative construction
strategy is unsuccessful since the mean score of their responses amounts
to 45.37% . Thus, the learners can be described as ''marginal users''.
9. The learners' ability to identify the SA of prohibition expressed by means
of the verbs ''avoid'', ''stop'' and ''not allowed'' is half successful since the
mean score of their responses amounts to 55% and the learners can be
described as ''modest users'' in this regard.
10. The learners' performance concerned with their identification of the SA
of prohibition expressed by means of the be+ not+ to+ infinitive
construction is unsuccessful according to the mean scores of their
responses 42%. Thus, the learners can be described as ''marginal users'' in
this regard.
11. As far as the learners' behaviour in relation to the use of indirect
prohibitive constructions which include reported speech expressions to
express the SA of prohibition, their central behaviour tendency according
to the mean score of their responses which amounts to 70% and classifies
them as "good users" at the recognition level.
12. The learners' ability to identify the SA of prohibition expressed by
means of brief announcements and block language expressions is
۱۱٦
appropriate and by using the mean score as an indicator, the learners'

success amounts to 67%. They can be described as ''competent users'' at
the recognition level.
13. The learners' ability to identify the SA of prohibition expressed by
means of modal verbs is well according to the mean score of their responses
which amounts to 53.6%. Thus, the learners can be described as ''modest
users'' at the recognition level.
5.2.2 The Learners' performance at Part 2 of the Test
The behaviour of the students at this level is compared with that of NESs'
and this leads to various conclusions listed as follows:
1. Iraqi EFL learners have displayed insufficient awareness of using all
types of strategies in performing the SA of prohibition in various
situations.
2. The learners show greater preference for using an explicit performative
expression strategy rather than the other types of strategies in most of the
situations. They employ this strategy in (20) situations while NESs use it
only in (1) situation.
3. The EFL learners' behaviour in many situations cannot match that of the
natives' and their choices of the appropriate strategy. Consequently, they
show less preference for the strategies used by the natives or employ
strategies which are unfavoured by them. For this reason, their
performance can be described as insufficiently appropriate or entirely
inappropriate.
4. Mostly, the contextual factors have no significant influence on the
learners' choice of strategies.
5. In Part 2 situations, the learners prefer using an explicit performative
expression strategy while the natives vary their use of the type of strategy
according to the context of situation.
۱۱۷
6. Iraqi learners, in Part 2 situations, show similar behaviour to that of the

natives by employing the same type of strategy in Type A situations (4),
(9), (24) and (12), (14), (25) in Type B; However, their behaviour in the
above situatins is sometimes characterized by the absence of the right
degree of politeness. In (21) situation, their behaviour is considered
inappropriate because it does not match that of the natives.
7. NESs allow for using brief announcements and block language
expression and indirect speech construction strategy in Type C situations
but in different percentages while Iraqi learners do not reveal any
tendency to use these strategies.
8. The learners show, according to Type C situations, disagreement with
that of the natives by employing direct prohibitive construction strategy
in Situations (10) and (16).
5.3 Pedagogical Recommendations
It is recommended that:
1. English textbooks should provide students with enough description of the
main characteristics that outline the speech act of prohibition. Such a
description would help students to choose the appropriate strategies that
indicate prohibition.
2. It is important to help the learners develop awareness for using all types
of strategies to express SA of prohibition and to put more appropriate
choices at their disposal.
3. Students should be given enough opportunity to practise the various
constructions of sentences that express the SAs in general and SA of
prohibition in particular especially in conversation.
۱۱۸
5.4 Suggestions for Further Research

The following topics are suggested for further research in this particular
area:
1. A study can be conducted to show the comparison between the speech act of
prohibition and other related speech acts such as commanding, advising,
warning, requesting and threatening.
2. A study can be done by investigating the use of the speech act of prohibition
in a complete literary work such as a play or a novel.
۱۱۹
Bibliography
Abercrombie, D. (1967). Elements of General Phonetics. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press.
Adler, M. (1980). A Pragmatic Logic for Commands. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins B. V.
Alexander, L. G., Allen, S. W., Close, R. A. and O’Neill, R. J. (1957). English
Grammatical Structure. London: Longman Group Limited.
Al-Hindawy, F. (1999). Iraqi EFL Learners' Use of the Speech Acts of
Commands and Requests. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation.
University of Baghdad.
Allan, K. (1986). A. Linguistic Meaning: Vol. 1. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul Inc.
__________ (1986). B. Linguistic Meaning: Vol. 2. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul Inc.
__________ (1998). ''Meaning and Speech Acts''. www.Google Com: 1-46.
Allen, S. W. (1959). Living English Structure. London: Longman Group
Limited.
Al-Rifa'i, N. (2004). The Syntax - Phonology Interface in English Sentence
Construction. Unpublished M. A. Thesis; University of
Mustansiriya.
Al-Sulaimaan, M. M. D. (1997). ''A Study of Three Speech Acts: Promise,
Threat and Warning in Three Shakespearian Tragedies with
Reference to their Realization in Arabic''. Unpublished Ph. D.
Dissertation. University of Mosul.
Austin, J. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford : Oxford University
Press.
__________(1963).''Performative-Constative''. The Philosophy of Language.
ed. by John Searle, (1971): 1-12. London: Oxford University Press.
۱۲۰
Auwera, J. (1980). ''On the Meaning of Basic Speech Acts''. Journal of

Pragmatics 4, pp. 253-64.
Bach, K. and Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech
Acts. Cambridge: Mass, Mit Press.
Bally, T. (2002). Pragmatics and Linguistics. www.pragmatic.ass.edu.
Binnick, R. I. (1991). Time and the Verb. A Guide to Tense and Aspect.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brine, S. (2001). How to Communicate. www.scienceforall.com.
Brinton, L. J. (2000). The Structure of Modern English. A Linguistic
Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B. V.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1979). 'Universals in Language Usage: Politeness
Phenomena'. In E. Goody (ed.) Questions and Politeness.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56-289.
Butler, C. (1985). Statistics in Linguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Chalker, S. (1989). Current English Grammar. New York: Macmillan
Publishers Ltd.
Clark, J. and Yallop, C. (1999). An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology.
Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Close, R. A. (1968). English as Foreign Language: Grammar and Syntax for
Teachers and Advance Students. London: George Allen and Unwin
Ltd.
__________ (1975). A Reference Grammar for Students of English.
London: Longman Group Limited.
Collins, C. (1987). Cobuild English Language Dictionary. London and
Glasgow: Collins Publisher.
Cook, G. (2003). Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corder, S. Pit. (1982). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
۱۲۱
Coulthard, M. (1985). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London:

Longman Group Ltd.
Crocker, L. and Algina, J. (1986). An Introduction to Classical and Modern
Test Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Crowther, J. (1995). Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current
English. New York: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D. (1998). The Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
__________ (2003). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell Ltd .
Davies, E. (1986). The English Imperative. London: Croom Helm.
Downing, A. and Locke, P. (2006). English Grammar. A University Course.
New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Eastwood, J. (2002). Oxford Guide to English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Eckersley, C. E. and Eckersley, J. M. (1960). A Comprehensive English
Grammar for Foreign Students. London: Longmans, Green and Co
Ltd.
Ernst, T. (2004). The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Fein, R. A., Vossekuil, D. B., and Holden, G. A. (1995). ''Threat Assessment:
An Approach to Prevent Targeted Violence''. National Institute
of Justice. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice.
Finch, G. (2005). Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
Frank, M. (1972). Modern English: A Practical Reference Guide.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
۱۲۲
Fraser, B. (1975). 'Hedged Performatives'. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.)

Syntax and Semantics. Vol.3, Speech Acts. New York:
Academic Press, pp. 187-210.
___________(1980). ''Conversational Mitigation''. Journal of Pragmatics 4:
341-350.
___________ (1998). ''Threatening Revisited''. In Forensic Linguistics. Vol.5,
No.2, pp.159-73.
Geiring, D., Gottfried, G., Achim, H. and Henry, K. (1987). English
Grammar: A University Handbook. Leipzing. Verb Verlag Enzy.
Klopadie.
Gethin, H. (1983). Grammar in Context. London: Collins EIT.
Gimson, A. (1980). An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English.
London: Edward Arnold Publishers, Ltd.
Green, J. (1975). ''How to Get People to Do Things with Words: The
Whimperative Question''. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), PP.
107-142.
Griffiths, P. (2006). An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). ''Language Structure and Language Function''. In:
Lyons, J. (eds). New Horizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books Ltd.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language.
London: Edward Arnold.
___________ (2003). On Language and Linguistics. London: Book Ens Ltd,
Royston, Herts.
Hamblin, C. L. (1987). Imperatives. London: Basil Black-Well Ltd.
Harris, D. (1969). Testing English as a Second Language. New York:
McGrow-Hill Inc.
۱۲۳
Harrison, A. (1983). A Language Testing Handbook. London: Macmillan

Press.
Hartman, R. R. and Stork, F. C. (1976). Dictionary of Language and
Linguistics. London: Applied science Publishers Ltd.
Hatch, E. and Farhady, H. (1982). Research Design and Statistics for Applied
Linguistics. Cambridge: Newbury House Publishers.
Haverkate, H. (1979). Impositive Sentence in Spanish: Theory and
Description in Linguistic Pragmatics. North-Holliand Publishing
Company.
___________ (1984). Speech Acts, Speakers and Hearers: Reference and
Referential Strategies in Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Heaton, J. (1988). Writing English Language Tests: A Practical Guide for
Teachers of English as a Second or Foreign Language.
London: H. Charles and Co. Ltd.
Hornby, A. S. (1961). A Guide to Patterns and Usage in English. London:
Oxford University Press.
___________ (2000). Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current
English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huddleston, R. D. (1971). Sentence in Written English: A Study
Based on the Analysis of Scientific Texts. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Huddleston, R. D. (1988). English Grammar: An Outline. Cambridge:
Hudson, R. A. (1996). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hurford, J. R. and Heasley, B. (1983). Semantics: A Course Book.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
James, C. (1983). Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman Group Limited.
۱۲٤
Jespersen, O. (2007). Essentials of English Grammar. Delhi: Henry

Holt and Company, Inc.
___________ (1949). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles.
Syntax. vol. 3 and 4. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Jones, D. (1972). An Outline of English Phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Korbayova, J. K. (2005). Speech Acts. www.Let. Uu.nl/ LOT/ News & Events.
Kroeger, P. R. (2005). Analyzing Grammar: An Introduction. Cambridge:
Lakoff, R. (1973). ''The logic of Politeness''. In Papers from the Ninth
Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago
Linguistic Society: 306-19.
Leech, G. (1971). Meaning and The English Verb. London: Longman.
________ (1983). Semantics. Middlesex. Penguin books Ltd.
________(1989). An A-Z of English Grammar and Usage. Thomas Nelson
and Sons Ltd.
_______ (1996). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman Group
Limited.
Leech, G. and Short, M. (1981). Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to
English Fictional Prose. London: Longman Group Ltd.
Leech, G. and Svartivik, J. (1994). A Communicative Grammar of English.
London: London Group, Ltd.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Lodge, K. (2009). A Critical Introduction to Phonetics. London: MPG Books
Group.
Lyons, J. (1977). A. Semantics: Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
۱۲٥
Lyons, J. (1977). B. Semantics: Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.
Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary. (2010). www.merriam-
webstercollegiate.com
Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher.
Mousavi, S. A. (1999). A Dictionary of Language Testing. Tehran: Rahnama
Publications.
Murphy, R. (2004). English Grammar in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nelson, T. (1966). The Highroads Dictionary. London: Thomas Nelson and
Sons LtD.
Nileson, F. (2000). An Account on Pragmatics. www.scienceforall.com.
Olshtain, E. and Cohen, A. D. (1983). 'Apology: A Speech Act Set '. In N.
Wolfson and E. Juddie (eds.) Sociolinguistics and Language
Acquisition. pp. 18-35.
Onions, C. T. and Miller, B. C. (1971). Modern English Syntax. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. (1995). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary: New Edition. (2000). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Palmer, F. R. (1981). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, H. E. (1963). A Grammar of English Words. London: Longman.
Partridge, J. G. (1982). Semantic, Pragmatic and Syntactic Correlates.
Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag Tubingen.
Pearsal, J. (1998). The New Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Perkins, M. R. (1983). Modal Expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter
(Publishers).
۱۲٦
Perlmutter, D. and Soames, S. (1979). Syntactic Argumentation and the

Structure of English. California: University of California Press Ltd.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985). A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London:
Longman Group, Ltd.
Robinson, E. (2002). Phonology and Pragmatics. www.scienceforall.com.
Scaruffi, P. (1998). Thinking About Thought. www.Google.com 1-6.
Schiffman, H. (1996). Negative Imperative. www.Google. com: 1-2.
Searle, J. R. (1971). The Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
_________ (1972). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.
_________ (1975). 'Indirect Speech Acts' . In Cole, P. & J. L. Morgan ( eds.)
Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York:
Academic Press, Inc. pp. 59 - 82.
_________ (1977). A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. In A. Rogers, B.
Wall and J. P. Murphy (ed.), P.P 27-46.
_________ (1979). Metaphor. In Ortony, (ed.) pp. 92-123.
Searle, J. R. and Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundation of Illocutionary Logic.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Spring, D. (1999). Negative Imperative. Lesson (29) www.Google.com: 1-2.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of
Natural Language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Swan, M. (2005). Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics.
London: Longman Group, Ltd.
Thomson, A. J. and Martinet, A. V. (1986). A Practical English Grammar.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thornbury, S. (2004). About Language: Tasks for Teachers of English.
۱۲۷
Trask, R. (1993). A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics.

London: Routledge Inc.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and
Apollogies. Berlin: Mouton de Cryter.
Traugott, E. C. and Pratt, M. L. (1980). Linguistics for Students of
Literature. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch.
Trouson, K. (2002). Pragmatic Prosody. www.pragmatic.ass.edu.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1976). Pragmatics of Language and Literature.
Amsterdam: North- Holland Publishing Co.
__________ (1977). Text and Context: Exploration in the Semantics and
Pragmatics of Discourse. New York: Longman Inc.
__________ (1993). ''Discourse and Cognition in Society''. In Crowly, D. &
Mitchell, D. (Eds.), Communication Theory Today. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Van Dijk, T. A. and Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse
Comprehension. New York: Academic Press Inc.
Wallace, D. B. (2000). The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An
Intermediate Greek Grammar. Michigan: Daniel. B. Wallace.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
_________(2010). The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Zandvoort, R. (1965). A Handbook of English Grammar. London: Longman,
Green and Co Ltd.
١٢٨
Appendix 1
Letters to Jury Members
and
Native English Speakers
This appendix consists of two sections. The first presents the letter sent to
the jury members in this study while the second one introduces the letter sent to
the native English speakers.
A) The Letter Sent to the Jury Members:
College of Education for
Human Sciences
Department of English
Higher Studies
Dear Sir / Madam,

The test attached to this letter is intended to provide data about: 1) Iraqi
EFL learners' ability to recognize the speech act of prohibition from other
related ones such as commanding, advising, warning, requesting and
threatening) when choices are given. 2) The strategies adopted by the learners
for issuing the speech act of prohibition according to certain contextual factors.
The test falls into two parts. "Part 1" is intended to fulfil the first objective.
"Part 2" takes the form of an elicitation technique.
The contextual factors that have been taken into account in building up the
situations of both parts of the test include: status, distance, and solidarity of
power. The task is intended to involve undergraduate students at fourth stage/
College of Education/ English Department/ Kerbala University. Thus, the
١٢٩
testees will be represented by fourth-year students of the Department of English

of the College of Education of University of Kerbala.
You are kindly requested to give your opinion of the validity of the test by:
1- indicating the suitability of the techniques used.

2- indicating the suitability of each item.
3- suggesting any changes or modifications.
Thank you in advance
Shaymaa Abid Abdul- Ameer

M.A Student/ English Department
١٣٠
B) The Letter Sent to the Native English Speakers:
Higher Studies
College of Education
for Human Sciences
Department of English,
Hilla Governorate,
Iraq.
19th of March, 2012
Native speaker,
The test attached to this letter is a procedure adopted by the researcher to
investigate the ability of Iraqi learners of English as a foreign language to
recognize and issue the speech act of prohibition (i.e., communicative function)
when expressed by different strategies. Your responses will be taken as a scale
according to which the learners' answers will be analyzed. Hence, you are
kindly requested to respond spontaneously to the test taking the situations
involved in it as real life conversational ones.
Thank you very much for your co-operation
Shaymaa Abid Abdul- Ameer

M.A Student/ English Department
١٣١
Appendix 2
The Test
This appendix introduces the version of the test which was submitted to the
informants. A number of native speakers, however, were involved only in part 2
of the same version.
Part One: Recognition
Q// Read the following situations carefully and then choose what you
believe to be the intended speech act conveyed by the given utterance:
Situations Utterance Speech Acts
1 Thomas has received a present - Don't touch it. a. warning

from a friend of his. He notices
b. advising
that his curious younger sister
tries to open it, so he says: c. prohibiting
d. commanding
2 At the university where Susan - I want this paper to a. prohibiting

works as a typist, the manager be typed today.
b. advising
hands her an important paper and
says: c. commanding
d. requesting
3 Michael finds out that his little - Avoid entering my a. requesting

brother plays in his room and room.
b. prohibiting
reads his private diary. He
angrily says: c. warning
d. advising
١٣٢
4 In the classroom, the students - Don't make noise, a. threatening

who have an exam are talking will you?
b. commanding
with each other and making
noise. The teacher addresses c. requesting
them:
d. prohibiting
5 A bad- tempered manager - You will be fired if a. requesting

addresses his secretary who has you do it again.
b. warning
not reminded him of the date of
an important meeting: c. prohibiting
d. commanding
6 Mark is a teacher. One of his - You must not tell a. prohibiting

students is used to speak unreal lies.
b. commanding
things. Mark furiously says to
him: c. requesting
d. threatening
7 Robert has a headache. His - Why don't you take a. threatening

eldest sister says to him: a pain killer?
b. prohibiting
c. advising
d. warning
١٣٣
8 Luna is an M.A. student. her - Excuse me, mom, I a. commanding

mother wants her to travel with can't come with you.
b. threatening
her to London to see her sister.
Luna can't travel with her mother c. prohibiting
because she needs to take care of
her study, so she addresses her d. requesting
mother:
9 Lucy is trying to park her car - You are not allowed a. advising
where cars are not allowed to to park in here.
b. warning
park. The traffic police says to
her: c. commanding
d. prohibiting
10 Juliet falls in love with Peter. - See Juliet and I'll a. prohibiting
Her eldest brother, Dick, finds kill you.
b. threatening
out that Peter is a drag dealer but
she doesn't know. Dick says to c. commanding
Peter angrily:
d. requesting
11 While Rose is speaking to one of - Don't be such a a. commanding

her friends on the telephone, her nuisance.
b. threatening
younger sister, Sandra, is playing
the music very loudly. Rose, c. prohibiting
furiously, addresses her:
d. requesting
12 A tourist calls a tourist bureau to - Don't go outside at a. warning

ask about the security of the city night because it
b. prohibiting
he is visiting. The clerk says to might be dangerous.
him: c. commanding
d. requesting
١٣٤
13 While John is walking in the - Excuse me, we're a. threatening

street, two women stop him, one strangers here, and
b. commanding
of them says to him: we are trying to find
a good hotel. c. requesting
d. prohibiting
۱٤ To avoid the danger of careless - Keep out of the a. advising

medicine treatment, all reach of the children.
b. prohibiting
medicines contain such
notification: c. threatening
d. requesting
15 Peter is a teacher and his - Don't make a noise, a. threatening

students are making noise. The can you?
b. requesting
headmaster of the school is
making a tour to have a look at c. advising
classes. Peter addresses his
students: d. prohibiting
16 At work, Jane's workmate sees - Have some rest, a. prohibiting

that Jane keeps working hard can't you?
b. advising
though she looks exhausted. She
says to her: c. commanding
d. threatening
17 In petrol stations, there are - Avoid smoking a. warning

different notifications putting to here.
b. commanding
indicate the danger of fire in
such places. One of these c. advising
notifications :
d. prohibiting
١٣٥
18 John is the eldest brother. One - Do that again and a. threatening

day, he discovers that his little I'll hurt you.
b. warning
sister is playing with his piano.
John addresses her: c. requesting
d. prohibiting
۱۹ George, Dennis, and Bob are - Don't laugh any a. commanding

intimate friends. In the funeral of more.
b. requesting
George's father, Dennis noticed
Bob speaking with his brother c. prohibiting
and laughing in a loud voice.
Dennis says to Bob: d. warning
20 Linda's mother feels upset of - Leave me a lone. a. threatening

Linda because she got bad scores
b. prohibiting
in examinations. She says to
Linda: c. requesting
d. commanding
١٣٦
21 Tom has a big trouble in his - Would you mind a. requesting

work. While he is walking in the talking with you for a
b. advising
street, he meets his dearest friend moment?
Jack. Tom addresses Jack : c. prohibiting
d. warning
22 Bob is sitting in his reading - You are not to come a. commanding

room. His eldest son abruptly into my room without
b. threatening
enters the room during his knocking.
reading. He addresses his son: c. prohibiting
d. requesting
23 On the road, George's car is out - Will you kindly a. advising

of petrol. He asks a container give me a lift to the
b. requesting
driver standing on the road side, petrol station, please?
by saying: c. commanding
d. prohibiting
24 In a medical clinic, a doctor - You MUST STOP a. threatening

speaks with one of his patients taking this medicine.
b. prohibiting
who has been taking medicine
for two months. c. advising
d. requesting
25 In a college, Dick is a naughty - If they made me the a. threatening

person. He always has troubles head of the
b. commanding
with his colleagues. After department, I would
quarrelling with a group of boys, make life impossible c. prohibiting
he addresses them: for you.
d. advising
١٣٧
26 Mark and Sandy have a sixth - If you put the baby a. advising
month baby whose name is Rose. down, she 'll scream.
b. threatening
While Sandy bears her daughter
and her husband is busy in c. warning
painting the room, the telephone
rang. Sandy tries to put Rose d. prohibiting
down and answer the phone.
Mark observes her and says to
Sandy:
27 A headmaster is inspecting the - You must not use a. warning

examination hall. He addresses dictionaries in the
b. prohibiting
his students by saying: examination.
c. commanding
d. advising
28 In a medical clinic, a nurse - You may not smoke a. requesting

noticed two men smoking in here.
b. warning
cigarettes. She said to them:
c. prohibiting
d. commanding
29 David has an important exam - I advise you to stay a. threatening

next Wednesday. His uncle, at home next
b. requesting
Andrew, invites David to a party Wednesday.
the night before. David's father c. advising
addresses him:
d. prohibiting
30 Robert is an official employee in - You cannot go a. prohibiting

the British Airlines. His friend, abroad without
b. commanding
George, wants to book a flight to passport.
England. Robert actually knows c. warning
that his friend George has no
d. requesting
passport. Robert tells George:
١٣٨
31 Peter sees a suspect person - I swear I'll kill you a. prohibiting

approaching his son. He shouts if you approach my
b. requesting
at his face angrily: son.
c. warning
d. threatening
32 In a church, Morris, a priest - "Thou shalt not kill" a. threatening

speaks with his eldest son, Tom, which means you
b. prohibiting
about the sin of killing. Morris must not kill.
illustrates this sin by telling Tom c. commanding
a verse from the Bible:
d. advising
33 In the kitchen, Jane is busy in - the door, can't you a. prohibiting

preparing dinner while her hear?
b. warning
daughter, Linda, is wearing a
headphone and listening to c. commanding
music. Meanwhile, the door bell
rings. The mother furiously d. requesting
addresses her daughter:
34 You invite your friend Matilda to - I forbid you to play a. requesting

have a cup of tea with you. with knives again.
b. threatening
Matilda came to your house with
her little daughter Sandy whose c. advising
age is a thirty month child. After
awhile, you missed the little d. prohibiting
daughter and fortunately, you see
this child in the kitchen cutting
the cake with a very large
butcher knife. You are concerned
that she might injure herself and
so you speak:
١٣٩
35 Kent is a student at the College - It is suitable for you a. commanding

of Education. He asks his tutor to to choose these
b. prohibiting
help him in choosing five subjects.
subjects from a list of twelve. c. advising
His tutor says:
d. requesting
36 A head of a firm, who is worried - Will you please a. prohibiting

about its balance at the bank, check our balance?
b. warning
calls the accountant for
checking. He addresses him by c. requesting
saying:
d. commanding
37 Lucy's daughter, Ann, used to - Don't wear such a. advising

wear unsuitable clothes. The clothes anymore.
b. threatening
mother wants to stop her
daughter from wearing such c. prohibiting
clothes. She addresses Ann with
d. warning
a furious tone:
38 At the military, a haughty officer - WHO are YOU to a. commanding

addresses one of his soldiers who suggest that?
b. threatening
has suggested a change to the
military plan. He speaks with his c. prohibiting
soldier angrily:
d. requesting
39 In a final exam, one of the - Cheating is a. commanding

students tries to cheat. At the prevented.
b. threatening
same time one of the teachers
noticed him, so he speaks loudly: c. advising
d. prohibiting
40 Bill knows that his wife, Helen, - Watch out for your a. advising
is suffering from her teeth. The teeth.
b. prohibiting
doctor tells her not to eat lots of
sweet but she doesn't care. Thus, c. commanding
Bill says to her:
d. warning
١٤٠
٤۱ At a library, Michael, Bob, and - Don't disturb. a. prohibiting

John start a heating discussion
b. advising
and their voices begin to be
heard by others. At this moment, c. threatening
the librarian addresses them:
d. commanding
٤۲ In a live class discussion - Isn't it good for you a. prohibiting

between students. Jane is very to participate?
b. requesting
smart but quiet and a little shy,
she is afraid of making wrong c. warning
opinions. Her friend John
addresses her: d. advising
٤۳ When there is a homicide - No entrance. a. prohibiting

somewhere in a town, the police
b. threatening
secure the area with a tape and
put this note: c. commanding
d. requesting
٤٤ At a restaurant, John and his - Why don't you have a. advising

family don't know whether to eat grills? They are
b. commanding
grills or fish. Thus, John asks the delicious.
waiter and he replies: c. requesting
d. prohibiting
٤٥ In the street, there is a garden - Entering is a. advising

newly formulated, a new grass is prohibited.
b. commanding
cultivated. That is why there is a
large note written beside it. This c. requesting
note states:
d. prohibiting
٤٦ A bank- robber attacks Jane who - If you don't give me a. commanding

is an official employee in that the money, I'll shoot
b. prohibiting
bank. He says to Jane: you.
c. threatening
d. requesting
١٤١
٤۷ Morris has no good practice in - I prevent you from a. threatening

swimming. He went with his swimming, the water
b. commanding
friend Andrew to the Atlantic is deep here.
Ocean. Seeing the sight of the c. prohibiting
Ocean, Morris decides to swim.
d. advising
Andrew addresses him:
٤۸ A solid officer addresses one of - Don't you quarrel a. prohibiting

his soldiers who has quarrelled again.
b. warning
with another soldier during the
military training: c. requesting
d. advising
٤۹ William is listening to the news - The phone! a. advising

on TV. He instructs his son to
b. prohibiting
answer the phone by saying:
c. commanding
d. threatening
٥۰ Martin and Paul went to the - Look out! The raft a. warning
beach this morning. They made a is not tied very well.
b. commanding
raft and put it in the sea. Martin
says to his friend: c. prohibiting
d. threatening
١٤٢
Part Two
Production: Strategies Used for Expressing the Speech Act of
Prohibition
Q// Use the appropriate utterance to issue the speech act of prohibition
according to the following situations:
1. Bob is not a good swimmer. He has just learnt swimming. Bob's eldest
brother notices that the sea is too rough today. He says to him:
2. A teacher addresses a disobedient student who always quarrels with

his classmates:
3. William is a good father. By chance he observes a thirteen- year-old

son who is trying to smoke a cigarette. He addresses him:
________________________________________________________
4. While John is trying to have some rest, his younger brother, Tom,
wants to use John's laptop but he does not want him to do that. John
prohibits Tom by saying:
________________________________________________________
5. Natalie is at home alone, her mother has told her to take care of her
naughty brother who always plays with knives. She tells him:
١٤٣
6. Robert works as a driver in a company. He usually drives fast. This

morning, his boss notices the road is slippery. So he addresses him:
______________________________________________________
7. Diana is a school headmistress. She notices a girl student wearing

strange clothes which is against the rules. She tells her:
________________________________________________________
8. Peter is the eldest son. He always beats his little brother. Peter's father
is getting very angry because of Peter's behaviour. So he addresses him:
________________________________________________________
9. Prevent your little sister from playing with matches.
________________________________________________________
10. George's friend wants to swim in the Ocean. The Ocean is very deep
and dangerous. Thus, he says to him:
_________________________________________________________
11. In a construction company, the manager forbids his secretary from

entering to the meeting room while meeting in progress by saying:
12. The second, in a bus, is in a bit of a hurry. He asks the driver to drop
him off at a traffic light but that is against the law. So, the driver replies
him:
___________________________________________________________
١٤٤
13. Mr. Brown has a fourteen year-old son, Mr. Smith, the neighbour of
Mr. Brown tells him that he saw his son driving the private car of Mr.
Brown. Thus, Mr. Brown calls his son and says to him:
14. Barbara is a talkative person. She used to speak a lot. In the school
and during the lectures she can't stop herself from talking. To improve
her behaviour the teacher says to her:
15. Mark is the eldest brother. He is working as an official employee in a

large company. He used to save files of the company in his private
computer. One day he finds his little sister, Jenny, trying to use his
computer. He furiously speaks with Jenny:
16. Margaret works as a financial employee in the bank. Her close friend
Sandy visits Margaret at her work and suddenly she tries to have a look at
the papers lying in front of Margaret. Margaret addresses Sandy:
17. At a prison gate, while doing their sentry, two guards find out that
two persons want to enter from the gate. They say to them:
18. A sharp jailor replies a prisoner who has been deprived of food for
one day as a penalty and this prisoner wants the jailor to bring him a
sandwich:
١٤٥
19. Mrs. John has a fever and she intends to go out to see a doctor. She
calls her eldest daughter who plans to go to the birthday party of her
friend and says to her:
20. Linda is giving the serviceman at her office some instructions about
the rules of this office but he does not seem to be paying enough
attention. She says to him:
21. Jane discovers that her little sister plays with her mother's personal
things during her absence. Jane says to her sister:
22. David, Andrew, and Dick are George's naughty sons. Everyday, they
used to quarrel with each other. One day George notices that his sons are
quarrelling in front of him. He addresses them:
23. A man is trying to stop his car in a place where cars are not allowed
to stop. The policeman in charge there notices him and states:
24. A good father prohibits his little son from drinking alcohol. He
addresses him by saying:
25. A stiff manager prevents his employees from being late. He

addresses them:
١٤٦
Key to Vocabulary
Part One:
bad temper ‫ﻣﺰاﺟﮫ ﺻﻌﺐ‬ traffic police ‫رﺟﻞ اﻟﻤﺮور‬
unreal things ‫ﻛﺜﯿﺮ اﻟﻜﺬب‬ drag dealer ‫ﯾﻌﻤﻞ‬

‫ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺨﺪرات‬
headache ‫ﺻﺪاع‬ nuisance ‫ﺷﺨﺺ ﻣﺰﻋﺞ‬
pain killer ‫ﻣﺴﻜﻦ اﻟﻢ‬ tourist bureau ‫اﻟﺸﺨﺺ‬

‫اﻟﻤﺴﺆول ﻋﻦ‬
‫إﻋﻄﺎء ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت‬
‫ﺣﻮل اﻟﺮﺣﻠﺔ‬
strangers ‫ﻏﺮﺑﺎء‬ workmate ‫زﻣﯿﻞ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬
intimate ‫ﺣﻤﯿﻢ‬ upset ‫ﻣﻨﺰﻋﺞ‬
abruptly ‫ﻓﺠﺄًة‬ give me a lift ‫ﺗﻮﺻﻠﻨﻲ‬
wicked ‫ﺷﺮﯾﺮ‬ British ‫اﻟﺨﻄﻮط اﻟﺠﻮﯾﺔ‬

Airlines ‫اﻟﺒﺮﯾﻄﺎﻧﯿﺔ‬
priest ‫ﻗﺲ أو راھﺐ‬ tutor ‫ﻣﺮﺷﺪ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻲ‬
firm ‫ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺗﺠﺎرﯾﺔ‬ haughty ‫ﻣﺘﻜﺒﺮ‬
homicide ‫ﺟﺮﯾﻤﺔ ﻗﺘﻞ‬ Atlantic ‫اﻟﻤﺤﯿﻂ‬

Ocean ‫اﻷطﻠﺴﻲ‬
TV ‫اﻟﺘﻠﻔﺎز‬ beach ‫اﻟﺴﺎﺣﻞ‬

١٤٧
Part Two:
disobedient ‫ﻏﯿﺮ ﻣﻄﯿﻊ‬ headmistress ‫ﻣﺪﯾﺮة‬
laptop ‫ﺟﮭﺎز اﻟﺤﺎﺳﻮب‬ matches ‫اﻟﺜﻘﺎب‬
naughty ‫ﺷﻘﻲ‬ announcement ‫إﻋﻼن‬
slippery ‫زﻟﻖ‬ talkative ‫ﻛﺜﯿﺮ اﻟﻜﻼم‬
NOTE: The capitalized words are stressed.

١٤٨
Appendix 3
The Jury of Experts
The Jury of experts consisted of the following members arranged according to
the scientific rank and alphabetically:
1. Professor Fareed Hameed Al-Hindawy, Ph. D. in English Language

and Linguistics, College of Education / University of Babylon.
2. Professor Hameed H. Bjaya, Ph.D. in Linguistics and Translation,
College of Education / University of Babylon.
3. Professor Hashim Abdullah Hussein, Ph. D. in Methods of Teaching
English as a Foreign Language, College of Education / Al-Qadisiya
University.
4. Professor Riyadh Tariq Kadhim Al-Ameedi, Ph. D. in Linguistics and
Translation, College of Education / University of Babylon.
5. Professor Salih M. Hameed, Ph. D. in English Literature, College of
Education / University of Babylon.
6. Assistant professor Asim Abood Al-Duleimi, Ph. D. in Methods of
Teaching English as a Foreign Language, College of Basic Education /
University of Babylon.
7. Assistant Professor Ghanim J. Idan, Ph. D. in English Language and
Linguistics, College of Education / University of Kerbala.
8. Assistant professor Ibtisam Abdul-Hussein, M. A. in English Language
and Linguistics, College of Education / University of Kerbala.
9. Assistant professor Jassim Mohammad Rehan, Ph. D. in Methods of
Teaching English as a Foreign Language, College of Basic Education /
University of Babylon.
10. Assistant professor Maha Tahir Eesa, Ph. D. in Linguistics and
Translation, College of Education / Al-Qadisiya University.
١٤٩
11. Lecturer Muayyad Omran Chiad, Ph. D. in English Language and

Linguistics, College of Education / University of Kerbala.
١٥٠
Appendix 4
The Statistical Method
This appendix introduces the formula used for calculating the standard
deviation of the test.
ƩX²
SD=
N- 1
where
X = a score minus the mean,
N = the number of items, and
Ʃ = the sum of.
(Mousavi, 1999: 362)

‫‪۱‬‬
‫اﻟﺨﻼﺻﺔ‬
‫ﺗُﻌﻨﻰ ھﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺔ اﻟﻌﺮاﻗﯿﯿﻦ اﻟﺬﯾﻦ ﯾﺘﻌﻠﻤﻮن اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺻﻔﮭﺎ ﻟﻐﺔ أﺟﻨﺒﯿﺔ ﻓﻌﻞ اﻟﻜﻼم "اﻟﻤﻨﻊ"‪.‬‬
‫وﺗﮭﺪف ھﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ إﻟﻰ )‪ (۱‬ﺗﻘﺼﻲ ﻣﻘﺪرة طﻠﺒﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺎت اﻷوﻟﯿﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻤﻲ‬
‫اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ اﻟﻌﺮاﻗﯿﯿﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﻤﯿﯿﺰ ﺑﯿﻦ ﻓﻌﻞ اﻟﻜﻼم "اﻟﻤﻨﻊ" وأﻓﻌﺎل اﻟﻜﻼم اﻷﺧﺮى‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﮫ وﺧﺎﺻﺔ اﻷﻣﺮ‪ ,‬اﻟﻨﺼﯿﺤﺔ‪ ,‬اﻟﺘﺤﺬﯾﺮ‪ ,‬اﻻﻟﺘﻤﺎس و اﻟﺘﮭﺪﯾﺪ واﻟﺘﻲ ﯾﺘﻢ اﻟﺘﻌﺒﯿﺮ‬
‫ﻋﻨﮭﺎ ﺑﺼﯿﻎ ﻟﻐﻮﯾﺔ ﻣﺘﺸﺎﺑﮭﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺪد ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻮاﻗﻒ ‪ (۲) ،‬ﺗﺤﺪﯾﺪ اﻟﺴﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت اﻷﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫اﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻻ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ أوﻟﺌﻚ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﯿﻦ ﻹﺻﺪار ﻓﻌﻞ اﻟﻜﻼم "اﻟﻤﻨﻊ" ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮاﻗﻒ ﻣﻌﯿﻨﺔ‪.‬‬
‫وﯾﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ أھﺪاف اﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺑﺘﺒﻨﻲ اﻟﻔﺮﺿﯿﺎت اﻵﺗﯿﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪ .۱‬ﯾﺪرك طﻠﺒﺔ اﻟﻜﻠﯿﺔ اﻟﻌﺮاﻗﯿﯿﻦ دارﺳﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻟﻐﺔ أﺟﻨﺒﯿﺔ ﺟﻤﻞ اﻟﻤﻨﻊ‬
‫ﺑﺸﻜﻠﮭﺎ اﻟﺼﺮﯾﺢ أﻓﻀﻞ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺠﻤﻞ ﺑﺸﻜﻠﮭﺎ اﻟﻀﻤﻨﻲ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .۲‬ﯾﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ھﺆﻻء اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺔ اﻟﺠﻤﻞ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻤﻨﺢ "اﻟﻤﻨﻊ" ﺻﺮاﺣﺔ" اﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻻ" أﻛﺜﺮ و‬
‫ﺑﺼﻮرة أﻓﻀﻞ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻤﻨﺢ اﻟﻤﻨﻊ ﺿﻤﻨﺎ"‪.‬‬
‫‪ .۳‬ﯾﻈﮭﺮ طﻠﺒﺔ اﻟﻜﻠﯿﺔ اﻟﻌﺮاﻗﯿﯿﻦ دارﺳﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻟﻐﺔ أﺟﻨﺒﯿﺔ ﻣﯿﻼ" ﻛﺒﯿﺮا"‬
‫ﻻﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺔ ﻣﻨﻊ ﻣﻌﯿﻨﺔ ﺑﺼﻮرة أﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻷﺧﺮﯾﺎت‪.‬‬
‫‪ .٤‬ﯾﺨﻠﻂ ھﺆﻻء اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺔ ﺑﯿﻦ ﻓﻌﻞ اﻟﻜﻼم "اﻟﻤﻨﻊ" وﺑﺎﻗﻲ أﻓﻌﺎل اﻟﻜﻼم اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﮫ‬
‫وﺧﺎﺻﺔ" اﻷﻣﺮ‪ ,‬اﻟﻨﺼﯿﺤﺔ‪ ,‬اﻟﺘﺤﺬﯾﺮ‪ ,‬اﻻﻟﺘﻤﺎس واﻟﺘﮭﺪﯾﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺘﺤﻘﯿﻖ أھﺪاف اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ وﺑﺮھﻨﺔ أو دﺣﺾ ﻓﺮﺿﯿﺎﺗﮭﺎ ‪ ،‬أﻋﺪ اﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ اﺳﺘﺒﯿﺎﻧﺎ وطﺒﻘﮫ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ )‪ (۱۰۰‬ﻋﯿﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ طﻠﺒﺔ اﻟﻜﻠﯿﺔ اﻟﻌﺮاﻗﯿﯿﻦ ﻣﻦ دارﺳﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻟﻐﺔ أﺟﻨﺒﯿﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫اﻟﺼﻒ اﻟﺮاﺑﻊ ‪ /‬ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻠﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻮم اﻻﻧﺴﺎﻧﯿﺔ ‪ /‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻛﺮﺑﻼء‬
‫ﻟﻠﻌﺎم اﻟﺪراﺳﻲ ‪ ۲۰۱۲ -۲۰۱۱‬م ﻟﻘﯿﺎس أداﺋﮭﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﯾﯿﻦ‪ :‬اﻹدراﻛﻲ واﻹﻧﺘﺎﺟﻲ ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻘﺪ طﻠﺐ ﻣﻨﮭﻢ أن ﯾﺴﺘﺠﯿﺒﻮا ﻻﺳﺘﺒﯿﺎن ﻣﺆﻟﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺰﺋﯿﻦ أوﻟﮭﻤﺎ ﯾﺘﻜﻮن ﻣﻦ ﺧﻤﺴﯿﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻔﺎ‬
‫ﻣﺼﻤﻤﺎ ﻟﻘﯿﺎس ﻣﻘﺪرة اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺔ ﻟﺘﻤﯿﯿﺰ ﻓﻌﻞ اﻟﻜﻼم "اﻟﻤﻨﻊ" واﻟﺘﻔﺮﯾﻖ ﺑﯿﻨﮫ وﺑﯿﻦ أﻓﻌﺎل اﻟﻜﻼم‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﮫ وﺧﺎﺻﺔ )اﻷﻣﺮ‪ ,‬اﻟﻨﺼﯿﺤﺔ‪ ,‬اﻟﺘﺤﺬﯾﺮ‪ ,‬اﻻﻟﺘﻤﺎس واﻟﺘﮭﺪﯾﺪ(‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﯿﻦ ﯾﺤﺘﻮي‬
‫‪۲‬‬
‫اﻟﺠﺰء اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻤﺴﺔ وﻋﺸﺮﯾﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻔﺎ ﺗﻄﻠﺐ أن ﯾﺼﺪر اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﻮن ﻓﻌﻞ اﻟﻜﻼم‬
‫"اﻟﻤﻨﻊ" ﻻﺳﺘﻜﺸﺎف اﻟﺴﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﯿﺎت اﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺷﯿﻮﻋﺎ" و اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻨﻊ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮاﻗﻒ ﻣﻌﯿﻨﺔ‪.‬‬
‫وﺗﺘﺒﻨﻰ ھﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻧﻤﺎذج ﻟﺘﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﺑﯿﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﻓﻀﻼ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻘﺎرﻧﺔ أداء اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﯿﻦ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى اﻹﻧﺘﺎج ﻣﻊ أداء ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺿﺎﺑﻄﺔ ﻣﺘﻜﻮﻧﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺸﺮة ﻣﻦ ﻣﺘﺤﺪﺛﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ اﻷﺻﻠﯿﯿﻦ‪.‬‬
‫إذ ﯾﺆﻛﺪ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ اﻟﺒﯿﺎﻧﺎت ﺗﺤﻘﻖ ﻓﺮﺿﯿﺎت اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ أﻧﮭﺎ ﺗﻘﻀﻲ ﻣﺎ ﯾﺄﺗﻲ‪:‬‬
‫‪ .۱‬ﯾﻤﯿﺰ اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺔ ﺟﻤﻞ اﻟﻤﻨﻊ ﺑﺸﻜﻠﮭﺎ اﻟﺼﺮﯾﺢ أﻓﻀﻞ ﺑﻜﺜﯿﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺠﻤﻞ ﺑﺸﻜﻠﮭﺎ‬
‫اﻟﻀﻤﻨﻲ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .۲‬ﯾﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ھﺆﻻء اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺔ اﻟﺠﻤﻞ اﻟﻤﻨﻄﻮﻗﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻤﻨﺢ ﻓﻌﻞ اﻟﻜﻼم "اﻟﻤﻨﻊ" ﺻﺮاﺣﺔ"‬
‫أﻓﻀﻞ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻤﻨﺢ ﻓﻌﻞ اﻟﻜﻼم "اﻟﻤﻨﻊ" ﺿﻤﻨﺎ" ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .۳‬ﻣﯿﻞ اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺔ إﻟﻰ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﻊ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺻﺮﯾﺢ إﺿﺎﻓﺔ" إﻟﻰ ﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻨﻔﻲ واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ اﻟﻔﻌﻞ اﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪ اﻟﻤﺘﺒﻮع ﺑﺄداة اﻟﻨﻔﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺒﯿﺮ ﻋﻦ ﻓﻌﻞ اﻟﻜﻼم‬
‫"اﻟﻤﻨﻊ" ﺑﺼﻮرة اﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﺴﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﺎت اﻷﺧﺮى اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻌﺒﺮ ﻋﻦ اﻟﻤﻨﻊ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .٤‬ﻻ ﯾﻤﯿﺰ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺔ ﺑﯿﻦ ﻓﻌﻞ اﻟﻜﻼم "اﻟﻤﻨﻊ" وﺑﺎﻗﻲ أﻓﻌﺎل اﻟﻜﻼم اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﮫ‬
‫وﺧﺎﺻﺔ" اﻷﻣﺮ‪ ,‬اﻟﻨﺼﯿﺤﺔ‪ ,‬اﻟﺘﺤﺬﯾﺮ‪ ,‬اﻻﻟﺘﻤﺎس واﻟﺘﮭﺪﯾﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮى اﻹدراﻛﻲ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .٥‬ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﻏﻠﺐ ھﻨﺎك ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﺪى ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺔ ﻹﻧﺘﺎج ﻓﻌﻞ اﻟﻜﻼم "اﻟﻤﻨﻊ" ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮى اﻹﻧﺘﺎﺟﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺘﺄﻟﻒ ھﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻤﺴﺔ ﻓﺼﻮل‪ .‬ﯾﻌﺮض اﻟﻔﺼﻞ اﻷول ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺤﺚ و أھﺪاﻓﮫ و‬
‫ﻓﺮﺿﯿﺎﺗﮫ و إﺟﺮاءاﺗﮫ و ﺣﺪوده و أھﻤﯿﺘﮫ‪ .‬أﻣﺎ اﻟﻔﺼﻠﯿﻦ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ واﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻓﯿﻜﺮﺳﺎن ﻟﻺطﺎر‬
‫اﻟﻨﻈﺮي ﻟﻔﻌﻞ اﻟﻤﻨﻊ واﻷﻓﻌﺎل ذات اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﮫ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮى اﻟﺘﺪاوﻟﻲ‪ .‬اﻟﻔﺼﻞ‬
‫اﻟﺮاﺑﻊ ﯾﻘﺪم ﻛﯿﻔﯿﺔ ﺟﻤﻊ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت و ﻛﯿﻔﯿﺔ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻠﮭﺎ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ إﺟﺮاء اﺧﺘﺒﺎر‪ .‬وأﺧﯿﺮا"‬
‫ﯾﻠﺨﺺ اﻟﻔﺼﻞ اﻟﺨﺎﻣﺲ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺟﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻮﺻﻠﺖ ﻟﮭﺎ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻋﺮض ﺑﻌﺾ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻮﺻﯿﺎت ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ ﻋﺪد ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت ﻹﺟﺮاء اﻟﻤﺰﯾﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺪراﺳﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﯿﺔ‪.‬‬
‫اﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎل ﻓﻌﻞ اﻟﻜﻼم "اﻟﻤﻨﻊ" ﻟﺪى اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺔ اﻟﻌﺮاﻗﯿﯿﻦ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫اﻻﻧﻜﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻟﻐﺔ أﺟﻨﺒﯿﺔ‬
‫رﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﺖ ﺑﮭﺎ‬

‫ﺷﯿﻤﺎء ﻋﺒﺪ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻷﻣﯿﺮ اﻟﺨﻔﺎﺟﻲ‬
‫إﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺲ ﻛﻠﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻮم اﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﯿﺔ ‪ -‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﺎﺑﻞ‬
‫وھﻲ ﺟﺰء ﻣﻦ ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت ﻧﯿﻞ درﺟﺔ ﻣﺎﺟﺴﺘﯿﺮ‬
‫ﻓﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﻜﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ‪ /‬ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺈﺷﺮاف‬
‫اﻷﺳﺘﺎذ‬
‫رزاق ﻧﺎﯾﻒ ﻣﺨﯿﻒ اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ‬
‫ﺷﺒﺎط ‪۲۰۱۳‬م‬ ‫رﺑﯿﻊ اﻵﺧﺮ ‪ ۱٤۳٤‬ھـ‬

شيماء عبد عبد الامير

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

شيماء عبد عبد الامير

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

شيماء عبد عبد الامير

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRAQI EFL LEARNERS' USE OF THE SPEECH

SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL OF THE COLLEGE OF

SHAYMAA ABID ABDUL AMEER ALKHAFAGY

FEBRUARY 2013 A. D. RABEEALAKHAR 1434 A. H.

In view of the available recommendations, I forward this thesis for

Approved by the Council of the College of Education for Human Sciences

Primarily, I want to present all my thanks and praises to Almighty

2.3.1 The Concept of Prohibition 14

2.4 Kinds of Prohibition 18

2.4.1 Cessative Prohibition 18

2.5.5 Str. 8: Be + Not + To + Infinitive 30

2.5.6 Str. 9: Indirect Speech to Convey Prohibition 31

2.6 The Relationship between Prohibition and Politeness 42

2.7 Intonation and Speech Act of Prohibition 43

2.9 Brown and Levinson's (1979) Model 46

2.10 A Model of the Analysis of the Speech Act of Prohibition's 47

3.2 Directive Speech Acts 50

4.2.2.2 Test Reliability 75

4.2.2.3 The Pilot Study 76

4.3 Data Analysis 80

4.3.1.1 Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition 80

1 Bach and Harnishs' Classification of Speech Acts 16

2 Felicity Conditions for Prohibitive Acts 17

3 Comparison of Different Classifications of Speech Acts 17

4 Searle's Felicity Conditions for Command 54

Searle's Felicity Conditions for Advice 60

6 Searle's Felicity Conditions for Warning 61

8 Allan's Felicity Conditions for Threat 71

9 Distribution of the Scores of the Test 77

Assessment Scale of Learner's Recognition Ability 79

Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition Expressed by 81

Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition Expressed by 81

Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition Expressed by a 82

13 Negative Imperative Construction

Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition Expressed by 84

Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition Expressed by 85

Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition Expressed by 86

17 Brief Announcements and Block Language Expressions

Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Prohibition Expressed by a 87

Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Command as a Related 88

Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Warning as a Related 89

Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Request as a Related 90

Subjects' Recognition of the SA of Threat as a Related Speech 91

Learners' Performance at the Recognition Level in terms of 92

Percentage of Using SA of Prohibition's Strategies in 104

۲٦ Inferior with Whom S/he Has a Non- Solidary Power

Percentage of Using SA of Prohibition's Strategies in 112

No. Title Page

No. Subject Page

1 Letters to Jury Members and Native English Speakers 128

2 The Test 131

3 The Jury of Experts 148

1.2 Aims of the study

2- Exercitives: " an exercitive is the giving of a decision in favour of/ or against

1- Representatives/ assertives: They commit the speaker to the truth of the

A third approach to the classification of speech acts which is important to

achieved by the uttering of certain words by appropriate people in appropriate

6. I warn you that I'll be there.

8. I sentence you to six months in prison.

Similarly, Crystal (2003: 178) defines felicity conditions as a "term used in