تحلیل کاربردشناختی کنش‌های کلامی در شعر خواندن محتسب، مست خراب‌افتاده را به زندان از مولوی و مست و هشیار از پروین اعتصامی

The function of speech verbs in linguistics and analytical philosophy is an important topic that John Rogers Searle has discussed extensively. The foundation of Searle's theory of speech acts lies in the process of establishing communication. This theory emphasizes that the speaker cannot accurately convey the meaning of their speech through mere fragments, which include words and grammatical structures. Analyzing these five actions from Searle's perspective can be beneficial for text analysis. By examining the types of speech acts in dialogue-oriented texts, it becomes possible to uncover the implicit meanings of the sentences, the distribution of power among the participants in communication, and the influence of these participants on the context and social structure. In this research, both quantitative and qualitative methods are employed to investigate the types of speech acts from Searle's perspective in two texts by Mowlavi and Parvin Etesami. These poets address a common theme: the conversation between a drunken man and a bailiff. Analyzing the sections of these two poems reveals that the varying functions and frequencies of each speech act are associated with distinct implicit meanings. In this research, the power dynamics between two characters—the drunk and the bailiff—are analyzed, along with the reasons for their speech acts based on their social status. The findings indicate that both texts frequently employ declarative and persuasive speech acts with negative connotations, including contempt, mockery, threats, coercion, and commands. Several factors, such as the social positions of the bailiff and the drunk, as well as the distribution of power between them, directly influence the types of speech acts used. 
Introduction:
Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics that examines various topics, including speech acts, cooperation, implication, discourse, conversation, and politeness in interactions. By analyzing these topics, researchers can uncover the implicit meanings of the individuals involved in the communication process, as well as their intentions, goals, and the nature of the social interactions created (Yule, 2007, p. 82). In the pragmatic analysis of dialogue-based texts, the examination of context is crucial. Every action and every utterance is directly related to the context. For instance, factors such as time, place, audience, and existing conditions influence the use of specific speech acts.
In fact, through the speech acts they employ, individuals reproduce or challenge social structures and articulate their social positions and roles (Fairclough, 1379: 39). Examining speech acts in communication and social interactions enables researchers to recognize the implicit meanings intended by both the sender and the receiver—meanings that are shaped by the social status and power dynamics of each participant. The discourse in literature illustrates the interaction between two characters in a dialogue-based text, and by analyzing both direct and indirect actions within it, one can assess the characters' performances in relation to language.
John Rogers Searle considers speech acts to be actions performed by each part of speech. In every communication process, certain conditions govern the utterance, which also assists the participants in communication, namely the sender and the receiver. Based on the relationship between the structure and function of a sentence, direct and indirect speech acts can be distinguished. In a direct speech act, there is a clear connection between the structure of the sentence and its function, whereas in an indirect speech act, the relationship between the structure and function of a sentence is less direct (Yule, 2007, p. 76). In text analysis, indirect speech acts can be particularly significant; these types of actions often carry implicit meanings that reflect the sender-receiver communication method within the text. Analyzing these implicit meanings is crucial for understanding the text and its context.
Searle identifies five categories of speech acts: the representative act, which expresses the speaker's commitment to the truth of a proposition, where the words correspond to the world; the directive act, which persuades the addressee to perform an action, where the external world aligns with the words; the commitment act, which conveys the speaker's intention to do something, where the external world is correlated with the words; the expressive act, which reveals the speaker's feelings about an event, where the words resonate with the external world; and the declarative act, in which the speaker announces new conditions to the addressee, resulting in a change in the external world through the words. Each action can be employed in a specific context and serves a distinct function (Safavi, 2011, 158).
Materials and Methods:
In this research, both quantitative and qualitative methods were employed to explore each action and determine their frequency. The implied meanings of these actions, in relation to the context of the text in the two poems, have been analyzed. It is important to note that the style of each poet is reflected in their use of various speech acts and the frequency with which they are employed.
Results and Discussion:
The drunkard and the bailiff, due to their contrasting mental states and fundamental differences, employ distinct speech acts to convey their beliefs and impose their opinions on others. The correspondence of the actions utilized by both the drunk and the bailiff in these two poems is significant. According to the data collected, the representative act in these poems represents the highest type of action, accounting for 68 percent in Mowlavi's work and 61 percent in Etesami's. Most of the expressive actions in these two poems are indirect, carrying a strong implied meaning of contempt and ridicule. In other words, the high frequency of implicit themes of humiliation and mockery in the poetry of Mowlavi and Etesami—55% and 52%, respectively—highlights the institutionalized differences between the two characters: the drunk and the bailiff.
Conclusion:
In this article, two debates— the Bailiff Called the Blind Drunk to Prison by Mowlavi and and the Wise by Parvin Etesami—are analyzed through the lens of Searle's speech acts. The context surrounding the relationships depicted in these two debates highlights the class differences between the two characters: the drunk and the bailiff. It also illustrates the unequal distribution of power and the cognitive disparities between them. In these debates, representative speech acts are employed with a frequency of 68% in Mowlavi’s poetry and 61% in Etesami’s poetry. In both texts, the bailiff character serves as a source of power, and expressive speech acts reflect the bailiff’s elevated social status, conveying implied meanings of humiliation, mockery, and threats. Conversely, the expressive acts of the drunk character are closely tied to his lower social status and diminished power.
Declarative acts that imply sadness and express regret are predominantly employed by the drunk in both debates. Directive speech acts appear with a frequency of 29% in Mowlavi’s poetry and 33% in Etesami's poetry. Most of these acts utilize imperative verbs, reflecting requests from the drunk and commands from the bailiff. In Etesami’s poetry, the directive act is used infrequently, at only 3%, and carries an implied meaning of humiliation and threat. The absence of this action in Mowlavi's poetry, along with its low frequency in Etesami's work, suggests a reluctance among the characters to effect change in one another. It is important to note that none of the actions convey positive implicit meanings, such as compassion or pity. Both poets employ rhetorical devices, including humor, rhetorical questions, and irony, in their expressive and directive speech acts to exert greater influence on their audience. In response to the second question posed in the article, it is worth mentioning that the direct and indirect functioning of speech acts plays a significant role in these two debates. Most of the actions expressed by the bailiff are direct speech acts, while many of the drunk's actions are indirect.