Trends in the use of commissives in the informal judicial system of Sulha

Mohamed Ayed Ibrahim Ayassrah, Ali Odeh Alidmat

Abstract


This article investigates the trends in using commissive speech in Sulha proceedings in Jordan. Sulha focuses on a dispute-resolution system in Arab society that uses the Bedouin Arabic dialect as the primary language of communication. Qualitative and quantitative research designs involving descriptive and survey instruments were used in this study. The data for the study were collected as audio recordings of some incidents taken from Sulha samples. Some of the data are from interviews with Sulha participants and the synthesis of archived disputes related to cases previously handled by Sulha. The data analysis was done according to the scope of Speech Act theory to show the trends adopted in the Sulha tribunals in making commitments by different participants in solving disputes. This study finds that the informal legal setting in the Sulha tribunals determines the patterns exhibited by commissive speech acts and their frequencies during the Sulha proceedings. A number of eight commissive speech acts are realised in the Sulha proceedings: promise, swear, vow, threat, guarantee, warning, acceptance, and offer. The eight commissive speech acts are realised either explicitly or implicitly. The results further reveal some of the commissive speech acts can elicit other commissives, and a number of commissives can also be resultant forces of other speech acts, such as the acts of directives. The finding of this study is expected to help understand how forms of language used in the Sulha enhance the adoption and discharge of commitment during the Sulha proceedings.

Keywords


commissive speech acts; informal judicial system; felicity conditions; Sulha tribunal

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdel-Jawad, H. R. S. (2000). A linguistic and sociopragmatic and cultural study of swearing in Arabic. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 13(2), 217-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908310008666600

Abdulrahman, B. S. (2012). Effects and implications of pragmatic competence for enhancing EFL university students’ written performance. Author House.

Abood, H. H. (2016). Investigating the use of the two speech acts of invitation and offer among Iraqi university learners [Doctoral dissertation, University of Sains Malaysia]. Repository@USM. http://eprints.usm.my/id/eprint/32159

Ad-Darraji, H. H. A., Foo, T. C. V., Ismail, S. A. M. M., & Abdulah, E. S. (2012). Offering as a comissive and directive speech act: Consequence for cross-cultural communication. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 2(3), 1-6.

Aitchison, I. (1987). Linguistics (3rd ed.). Hodder and Stoughton Ltd.

Al-Bantany, N. F. (2013). The use of commissive speech acts and its politeness implication: A case of Banten Gubernatorial Candidate Debate. Passage, 1(2), 21-34.

Alidmat, A., & Ayassrah, M. (2019). The use of offer and acceptance and their commissive implication in the Sulha tribunal. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(6), 347-355. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v9n6p347

Allott, N., & Shaer, B. (2017). Legal speech and the elements of adjudication. In B. Slocum (Ed.), The nature of legal interpretation: What jurists can learn about legal interpretation from linguistics and philosophy (pp. 191-213). University of Chicago Press.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.

Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organisational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey research. Information technology, learning, and performance journal, 19(1), 43-50.

Bayern, S. J. (2015). Offer and acceptance in modern contract law: A needless concept. California Law Review, 103, 67-102.

Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 447-466. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.447

Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatic and discourse. Routledge.

Cutting, J., & Fordyce, K. (2020). Pragmatics: A resource book for students. Routledge.

Danet, B. (1980). Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review, 14(3), 445-564. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053192

Edmondson, W. (1981). Spoken discourse: A model for Analysis. Longman.

Egner, I. (2006). Intercultural aspects of the speech act of promising: Western and African practices. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(4), 443-464. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2006.027

Embugushiki, A. U. (2010). Doing things with words: A speech act analysis of a Christian wedding. African Research Review, 4(1), 51-61. https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v4i1.58206

Fiorito, L. (2006). On performatives in legal discourse. Metalogicon, 12(2), 101-112.

Furr, A., & Al-Serhan, M. (2008). Tribal customary law in Jordan. South Carolina Journal of International Law and Business, 4(2), Article 3.

Gea, D., & Johan, M. (2020). Commissive speech act in Donald Trump’s speech campaign. Jurnal Ilmu Budaya, 8(2), 350-356.

Gusthini, M., Sobarna, C., & Amalia, R. M. (2018). A pragmatic study of speech as an instrument of power: Analysis of the 2016 USA Presidential Debate. Studies in English Language and Education, 5(1), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v5i1.6906

Grant, C. K. (1949). Promises. Mind, LVIII(231), 359-366. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LVIII.231.359

Grundy, P. (2000). Doing pragmatics. Hodder Arnold Publication.

Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. Cambridge University Press.

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Special Issue: Pragmatic development in a second language. Journal of Research in Language Studies, 52(S1).

Kiguru, G. (2014). A critical discourse analysis of language used in selected courts of law in Kenya [Doctoral dissertation, Kenyatta University]. Kenyatta University Institutional Repository. http://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/handle/123456789/14017

Kiguru, G., Ogutu, E. A. & Njoroge, M. C. (2016). Speech act functions in cross examination discourse in Kenyan. Pan Africa Christian University Institutional Repository.

Kissine, M. (2013). From utterances to speech acts. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511842191.007

Marmor, A. (2011). Can law imply more than it says? On some pragmatic aspects of strategic speech. In A. Marmor & S. Soames (Eds.), Philosophical foundations of language in the law (pp. 83-104). Oxford University Press.

Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics: An introduction. Blackwell Publishing.

Mitra, S. K. (2001). Making local government work: Local elites, Panchayati raj and governance in India. In A. Kohli (Ed.), The success of India’s democracy (pp. 103-126). Cambridge University Press.

Pavlíčková, E. (2005). Legal text as text in action. University of Presov.

Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Salgueiro, A. B. (2010). Promises, threats, and the foundations of speech act theory. Pragmatics, 20(2), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20.2.05bla

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Oxford University Press.

Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language and Society, 5(1), 1-23.

Stahn, C. (2020). Justice as message: Expressivist foundations of international criminal justice. Oxford University Press.

Suwaed, M. (2015). Historical dictionary of the Bedouins. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Tiersma, P. M. (1986). The language of offer and acceptance: Speech acts and the question of intent. California Law Review, 74(1), 189-232. https://doi.org/10.2307/3480357

Wray, H., Wood, J. S., Haigh, M., & Stewart, A. J. (2016). Threats may be negative promises (but warnings are more than negative tips). Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 593-600. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2016.1152972

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v10i1.20995

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 0 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Print ISSN: 2355-2794, Online ISSN: 2461-0275

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


View Journal Stats