Comparing the Meaning Potential in Shakespeare and Manto through Speech Acts: A Discourse Pragmatic Study


  • Tazanfal Tehseem Assistant Professor at the Department of English, University of Sargodha, Pakistan
  • Muazzma Batool Research scholar at the Department of English, University of Sargodha, Pakistan
  • Aqsa Arshad Research scholar at the Department of English, University of Sargodha, Pakistan
  • Zohaib Hassan Research scholar at the Department of English, University of Sargodha, Pakistan



Speech Act, Felicity Condition, Soliloquies, Hamlet, Keshulal Singh, Manto


This paper attempts to explain the application of speech act theory (John Searle, 1976) on the soliloquies expressed by Hamlet and Keshulal Singh. The descriptive focus of this study is to draw attention to the felicity conditions whether they are being fulfilled by the speakers while making an utterance or not. Content analysis based on speech act theory is used for this paper. It has been pointed out that declaratives are less while directives are more applicable on these soliloquies, with the help of analysis. Hamlet and Keshulal’s inner self is being depicted through their speeches and it is analyzed that they are so much upset and are in the situation of to be or not to be that they do not know what should be their strategies, in taking their revenge. In actuality, they are trying to extinguish the storm which is bursting inside them through their soliloquies but by comparing the inner devastation of both characters. It is highlighted that Hamlet’s soliloquies are more self-explanatory than that of Keshulal because Hamlet makes vows, questions, deplores, and challenges the circumstances more than the Keshulal.


Alam, M. J. (2015). Soliloquies in Hamlet?: Necessary or Unnecessary In the Context of the Play. International Journal of Novel Research in Interdisciplinary Studies, 2, 1–10.

Al-Ogaili, K.J.(2012). The Significance of Soliloquy as a Literary Technique in Hamlet. University of Kufa,1, 1-16.

Austin, J.L. (1962). How To Do Things With Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bayat, N. (2013). A study on the use of speech acts. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 213-221.

Boguslawski, A. (1983). AN ANALYSIS OF PROMISE.Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 607-627.

Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983).Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carroll, J. (2010). Intentional Meaning in Hamlet: An Evolutionary Perspective. Style, 44, 230– 260.

Chiu, C. (2012). Freud on Shakespeare?: An Approach to Psychopathetic Characters. Chang Gung Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences,5, 33–56.

Croddy, W.S. (2002). Performing illocutionary acts: an analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1113-1118.

Crystal, D. (1997).The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Firouzjaee, H. A. (2015). A Survey of Human Wickedness in Shakespeare’s Macbeth. English Literature and Language Review, 1, 17–22.

Firouzjaee, H. A., &Pourkalhor, O. (2014).Revisiting Shakespeare?: A Study of Human Nature in Hamlet and Macbeth. International Journal of English Literature and Culture, 2, 214– 221.

Goldschmidt, M.M. (1998). Do me a favor: A descriptive analysis of favor asking sequences in American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 129-153.

Gurcu, C. (2014). HAMLET ON DIFFERENT SCREENS.Route Educational and Social Science Journal, 1, 340-351.

Haberland, H., &Mey, J. (1977). Editorial: Linguistics and pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 1,1–12.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2006). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Haverkate, H. (1990). A Speech Act Analysis Of Irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 77-109.

Hirsh, J. (2010). The ‘To be or not to be’ Speech: Evidence, Conventional Wisdom, and the Editing of Hamlet. Georgia State University, 23, 34-62.

Hooti, N. (2013). William Shakespeare’s Hamlet?: A Deconstructive Study. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 4, 3903–3909.

Ilyas, S. &Khushi, Q. (2012). FACEBOOK STATUS UPDATES: A SPEECH ACT ANALYSIS. Academic Research International, 3(2), 500-507.

Kirsh, A.(1981). Hamlet’s Grief. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 48, 17-36.

Kurzon, D. (1998). The speech act status of incitement: Perlocutionary acts revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 571-596.

Leech, G.N. (1987). A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. London: Longman.

Levinson, S.C.(1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maleki, N. (2012). The Paradigm Examples of Polar ConceptIn Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Global Journal of Human Social Science, 12, 19-23.

Manto, S. H. (2015). Manto Kay Afsanay. Pakistan: Sang-e-meel.

Marzola, A. (2014). Hamlet and the Passion of Knowledge.Memoria di Shakespeare. A Journal of Shakespearean Studies, 220, 203–220.

Murphy, S. (2007). Now I am alone?: A corpus stylistic approach to Shakespearian soliloquies. Language,1, 67-85.

Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

Shakespeare, W.(2004).The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Retrieved from

Shibuya, Y. (2004). Hamlet’s ‘Globe’ and the Self as Performer in England and Japan. CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture, 6, 1-7.

Stearns, M.W. (1949). Hamlet and Freud.National Council of Teachers of English, 10, 265-272.

Tabatabaei, O. &Samiee, Z. (2013). Transfer of requestive speech act from L1 to L2in Iranian EFL learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 239-244.

Wouk, F. (2006).The language of apologizing in Lombok, Indonesia.Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1457-1486.

Y?ld?r?m, A. &?im?ek, H. (2005).Qualitative research methods in social sciences. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.

Yinghui, H. U. (2015). Random Comments on the Character of Hamlet.Studies in Literature and Language, 11, 66–70.




How to Cite

Tehseem, T. ., Batool, M. ., Arshad , A. ., & Hassan, Z. . (2021). Comparing the Meaning Potential in Shakespeare and Manto through Speech Acts: A Discourse Pragmatic Study. Review of Education, Administration & LAW, 4(3), 587-600.