SpeechActanal

ysi
sofanexcerptfr
om Ngugi
WaThiongoandMicer
eGithaeMugo’s
TheTri
alofDedanKimathi

ImikanNkopuruk
(
Mast
er’s-20175302002)

Sosanya,
Eli
zabeth
(
Master’
s-20050302082)

And

Ar
aba,Fol
asadeE.
(
Master
’s20175302010)

Depar
tmentofEnglish
Tai
Sol
ari
nUniversi
tyofEducati
on,
Niger
ia

Abst
ract
Thispaperf ocusesont hespeechact stheoryinanalyzinganexcerptf
r om page
35t hrough36oft hepopul arEastAf r
icanplay,TheTr ial
sofDedanKi mathiby
NgugiWaThi ongoandMi cer
eMugo. Par t
icul
arattenti
onwi l
lbepai dt othe
foll
owingaspect sofspeechact stheory:DirectandI ndi
rectI
ll
ocuti
onaryact s,
Polit
enesspr i
ncipl
e( facethreateni
ngandf acesaving)andper l
ocuti
onaryact s.
Finall
y,thi
sst udywillrevealhowt heanal ysi
sofspeechact shasprojectedthe
centrali
deaoft heplay.
Key
wor
ds:Backgr
ound,
Excer
pt,
anal
ysi
sanddi
scussi
on

1.
0 Generalbackground
SetinKeny a,EastAf ri
ca,TheTr i
alofDedanKi mathiisaco- authored
Afri
canplaybyNgugiWaThi ongoandMi cereGi t
haeMugo.Thepl ay
dramati
zest heev entsoft heMau- Mauemer gencei nKeny a.MauMau
rebel
li
onisav iol
ent,grass-rootsresistancemov ementl aunchedbyt he
Kikuyuandrelat
edet hni
cgr oupsagai nsttheBr i
tishcol oni
algov er
nmenti n
Kenyaint he1950s.Thr ought hehistoricalchar acter
,Kimat hihighli
ght s
revol
uti
onarycommi tmentandst r
uggl eint hef aceoft heBr i
ti
shr ule.
Kimathi
,ther evolut
ionaryl eader,ist hev oiceoft hepeopl einwhom,
 sy
mbolical
l
y,i
ssummedupbyt heunwitt
ingaspir
ati
onoft
hesuppr
essed
massesandthei
rpot
ent
ial
forr
evol
uti
onaryact
ion.

Theconf l
icti
nt heplayisnotthatofcult
urebutitismor eafightf
or
poli
ti
calindependence.The pl
ayfinall
y,i
s an att
emptt orest
orethe
charact
erofKimathitohi
slegi
ti
mateplacei
nthehist
oryofKeny
a.

2.
0 Excerptf
rom thePlay
Theexcerptdrawnfrom theplayiscentralt
othesubjectmatteroft
heplay.
Thisishighli
ghtedonpage35t hrough36ofTheTr ialofDedanKimathi.
Theconv ersati
onisbet weenHender son(theJudge)andKi mathi(t
he
prot
agonist)aft
eracourtsessioninrespectofKenyan’sfr
eedom case.

“
Kimat
hi: 1) Li
fe.Myl
i
fe.Gi
veupmyLi
fef
oryourLi
fe.

2) Whoar
eyou,
imper
ial
i
stcanni
bal
,toguar
ant
eemyLi
fe?

3) MyLifeisourPeopl
e
St
ruggli
ng
Fi
ghti
ng

4) Notlikeyout omai ntai

n
Slavery
Oppr essi
on
Exploitat
ion
But
Toendsl aver
y,exploit
ati
on

5) Moder
ncanni
bal
i
sm.Out
.Rat
.

6) Gobackt oyourmast
ers
Andtel
lthem:

7) Ki
mathiwil
lneversel
lKenya
TotheBri
ti
shortoanyother
Br
eedofman- eat
ers,
noworint
heyear
stocome”

Hender
son:8) War
der
!War
der
!.
..
”(
pg35-
36)

3.0 The applicat

ion ofSpeech Actstheoryinthe anal
ysi
s ofthe abov
e
excer
pt
TheSpeechActst heor
yst
atesthatwhenev
erweutterast
atement
,wear e
 attempti
ngt oaccomplishsomethingwithwor ds(Austi
n,1962andSear le,
1969).Everysentencewemakei sdesignedtoper f
orm certainfunct i
ons.
Suchfunctionsincl
ude:inf
orming,warni
ng,orderi
ng,questi
oni ng,thanking
andmanyot hers.Forthepurposethiswork,attent
ionwillbepai dt ot he
foll
owing speech actconcepts:Di r
ectIll
ucuti
onaryAct( DI A)
,I ndir
ect
I
llocut
ionaryAct(II
A),FaceThreateni
ngAct( FTA),FaceSav ingAct( FSA)
andPer l
ocuti
onaryAct(PA).

3.
1 Di
scussi
on
1) Li f
e.MyLif
e.Gi
veupmyLi
feforyourLif
e.
DI
A - Thi
si s an expressive monol
ogue.The
st
atementisimaginati
ve.
I
IA - Thespeakeri maginesandexpresseshis
at
ti
tudeaboutHender son’
spersuasi
onfor
hi
mt opleadifhewantstoli
ve.

2) Whoar
eyou,
imper
ial
i
stcanni
bal
,toguar
ant
eemyLi
fe?

DI
A - Thest at ementisadirecti
nterrogat
iveact .
I
IA - Thest atementsisani mpoli
tedaring.The
speakerdar esHender son,the Judge f or
asking hi m to name hi s pr
ize (withdraw
from t heKeny anfreedom case)andhav e
hislif
e.
FTA - The speaker gr ossl y and posi t
ively
threatenst hefaceoft heint
er l
ocutor(the
i
nt er
act ant – Hender son).The speaker
does not car e about t he inter
locutor’s
feeli
ngs.

3) MyLifeisourPeopl
e
St
ruggli
ng
Fi
ghti
ng

DI
A - ItisaDecl arat
ivest
atement.
I
IA - Thest at
ement sisani mpoli
tedar i
ng.The
speakerdar esHender son,the Judge f or
asking him t o name his pri
ze (withdraw
from t heKeny anfreedom case)andhav e
hislif
e.
FTA - The speaker gr ossly and posi t
ively
threatenst hefaceoft heinter
locutor(the
 i
nter
act
ant–Hender
son)
.

4) Notlikeyout omai ntai

n
Slavery
Oppr essi
on
Exploitat
ion
But
Toendsl aver
y,exploit
ati
on

DI
A - The st atement is an expressiv e and
compar ati
ve.
I
IA - Thespeakerf rownsatt heoppresi v
eand
exploi
tati
venatur
eoftheimperi
alists.
FTA - The st at
ementnegat i
velythreatens the
faceoft heint
erl
ocut
orindi
rect
ly.

5) Moder
ncanni
bal
i
sm.Out
.Rat
.
DI
A - Itisadi r
ectimperati
vestatementwi t
ha
stativefor
ce.
I
IA - The speakercommands Hender son,the
Judge and expect s him to leave his
presenceimmedi at
ely.
FTA - The speakerhas gr ossl
y and positi
vel
y
threatenedthefaceoft hei
nterl
ocutor(t
he
i
nt eract
ant–Hender son).I
tiswoef uland
shamef ulforanor dinaryyout
hl eaderto
disrespectajudge.

6) Gobackt oyourmast
ers
Andtel
lthem:
DI
A - Iti
sani mper at
ivestat
ementwi thast at
ive
for
ce.
I
IA - Thespeaker scommandst heinterl
ocutor
(Henderson)togobackt ohi smast ers(the
Bri
tons)
FTA - Thespeakerposi t
ivel
ythreatensthefaceof
the i nter
locut
or ( t
he i nter
actant –
Henderson)by commandi ng him on an
err
andt ohiswhitecounterparts.

7) Ki
mathiwil
lneversel
lKenya
TotheBri
ti
shortoanyother
 Br
eedofman-
eat
ers,
nowori
ntheyear
stocome
DI
A - Thisisacommi si
veact.
I
IA - The speaker commi ts himsel fto the
protecti
onofhi scountry
,Keny aandv ows
nottosel litt
otheBrit
ish.
FTA - Thespeakerhasposi ti
velythreat
enedthe
faceoft hei nt
erl
ocut
or( theinter
actant–
Hender son)wi ththeexpression“Breadof
man- eaters”.

Hender
son:8) War
der
!War
der
!.
..
”(
pg35-
36)
FSA - Thisstatementabovei saf acesav ingact.
Henderson,shout s“ Warder!War der!
”i n
ordert o save hisface from t he threat
posed by t he Kimathias a r esult of
aggressi
onandpat ri
oti
sm tohi scountry.
PA - Thisist heeffectoft heillocut
ioni nt he
above statements.Henderson pant s and
walksout .
4.
0 Conclusion
I
tisnat uraltonotethatinev eryhumanut terance,t
hereisanactt hatgoes
withit.Whenweut terstatement s,weexpectourl i
stenerstor ecogni ze
andunder st
andt hef unct
ionssuchst at
ement saremeantt oper f
or m.I f
theyf ail
ed to understand ouri ntenti
on,t hen we can say ,t heyhav e
‘
mi sunderstood’us.Thisst udyadopt edthespeechact stheoryt oanal yze
anex cerptfrom thepage35t hrough36oft hepopularAf r
icanpl ay,The
Trial
sofDedanKi mathi.Par ti
cul
arat tent
ionhasbeenpai dtothef oll
owing
aspects ofspeech act st heory:Di rectand I ndi
rectIll
ocutionaryact s,
Polit
enesspr inci
ple(facethreateningandf acesaving)andper locutionary
acts.

5.
0 Refer
ences
Austi
n,J.L.( .How t
1962) oDoThingswi
thWor
ds.Cambr
idge,Mass:
Har
var
dUnver
sit
yPr
ess.

Sear
le,J.(
1969)
.SpeechActs:AnEssayint
hePhil
l
osophyofLanguage.
NewYork:Cambr
idgeUni
versi
tyPr
ess.

Thi
ongo,
N.W.andMugo, M.G.(
1976)TheTr
ial
ofDedanKi
mat
hi.Nai
robi
:
Rev
Soci
ali
st.

NOUN(
2010)
.Di
scour
seAnal
ysi
s.Lagos:
Nat
ional
OpenUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.