This paper aims at investigating the concept of power relations as exemplified in Moses' story in the Holy Quran

Abstract This study aims at investigating the concept of power relations as exemplified in Moses' story in the Holy Quran. More specifically, it analyzes the dialogues taking place between the different speakers within this Quranic story. For purposes of the analysis, the paper adopts Speech Act Theory as exemplified in Searle's (1979) classification. The goal is to shed better light on aspects that govern the expression of power in the speech behavior of the interlocutors, and better understand the social/ political standards that had governed ancient Egypt during the time of the prophet Moses peace and blessings be upon him (pbuh).

Introduction

"Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the relationship between language and the contexts in which it is used. It grew out of work in different disciplines in the 1960s and early 1970s, including linguistics, semiotics, psychology, anthropology and sociology. Discourse analysts study language in use: written texts of all kinds, and spoken data, from conversation to highly institutionalised forms of talk" (McCarthy M., 1991, p. 5). Michel Foucault sees that discourse analysis does not deal with language per se, but it is interested in the way of creating language within social practices. Moreover, it reflects power differences between people through their use of language in their everyday life. Power, or lack of it, is to be shown through daily interactions between individuals. Foucault mentions that power "reaches into the very grain of individuals, touches their bodies and inserts itself into their actions and attitudes, their discourses, learning processes and everyday lives" (Foucault 1980, 30). According to him, power is to be found in any type of relation between the members of society and is to be acted through their daily use of language. The researcher tackles the issue of "power" as a central idea of this study. It is an attempt to show how power relations are to be shown through the use of language in a specific society. This society refers to that of the prophet Moses (peace and blessings be upon him) and Pharaoh (the king of Egypt at that time). It analyzes the discourse happening between the speakers involved in the story of Moses (pbuh). For purposes of the analysis, the researcher adopts speech act theory as exemplified in Searle's (1979) classification. Searle is known to be interested in the study of language as social action: "The linguistic philosophers such as Austin (1962), Searle (1969) and Grice (1975) were also influential in the study of language as social action, reflected in speech-act theory and the formulation of conversational maxims, alongside the emergence of pragmatics, which is the study of meaning in context (McCarthy., 1991, pp. 5-6).

The story of Prophet Moses (pbuh) is the most-mentioned story in the Holy Quran. It is narrated in many passages/ chapters in the Quran; sometimes in detail, and sometimes in brief. It contains many dialogues taking place between different speakers. Those speakers use language to interact with each other, which reflect their power differences. These power differences are what this study concerns with. This study analyzes the speakers' use of speech acts which, consequently, reflects their various power. Each speaker's use of speech acts reflects his/her much or little power towards the addressee in each situation. One can be more powerful than the other in a specific situation; and the latter can be more powerful in another encounter. Moses story is full of events and interactions between the different speakers. There are many dialogues taking place between the characters; the most famous is that taking place between Moses (pbuh) and Pharaoh. Apparently, Pharaoh seems to be more powerful as he is the king of Egypt who exploits his people, the people of Israel, and treats them unjustly. Not only that, he also kills their males while keeping their women alive. The Quran talks about Pharaoh's corruption (what means): Slaughtering their [newborn] sons and keeping their females alive. Indeed, he was of the corruptors (Quran: 28:4). Although Moses is just a citizen, he appears to be more powerful in different situations. Thus, Pharaoh wants to get rid of him in order that Moses could not affect the people of Israel; Allah Says (what means) that Pharaoh says to his people: "Let me kill Moses and let him call upon his Lord. Indeed, I fear that he will change your religion or that he will cause corruption in the land" (Quran: 40:26). This study tackles the idea of power relations in the whole Quranic story. It analyzes the dialogues happening not only between the two main characters: Moses and Pharaoh with each other but also between them and other different characters. Besides, there is an analysis of Allah Almighty's use of language to show His Great Power over His servants. It analyzes the way power relationships are expressed through their use of language/ speech acts.Purpose of the Study

The aim of the study is to apply Searle's (1979) classification of speech acts to the discourse/dialogues taking place between the different speakers in the Quranic story of the prophet Moses (pbuh). Throughout the analysis, the researcher attempts to reflect power relationships between the interlocutors through their use of language. Moreover, it aims at making the reader be aware of the strategies of exposing ideological issues. It also reflects the crucial political standards that Egyptians had lived at the time of this pharaoh period. Study Questions

By applying Searle's classification of speech acts to Moses' story in the Holy Quran, this study will attempt to answer the following questions:1) What are the main features of the Speech Acts applied in Moses Story?2) How do illocutionary acts reflect the power of the interlocutors within Moses Story?

3) How does the application of Searle's theory help to reveal the intended meaning of the speakers in the Quranic story?

4) How does the interlocutors' use of speech acts/ language reflect their own beliefs and ideologies?

Data of the study

The analysis tackles the story of Moses (pbuh) mentioned in the Holy Quran, which is supposed to be rich in using points under investigation. The Quran recounts details of the story of Moses in a number of chapters. They are chapters of al-A'raf (the Heights), Taha, al-Qasas (the Stories), ash-Sh'ara (the Poets), al-Baqara (the Cow), Ghafir (Forgiver), Yunus (Jonah), al-Isra (The Night Journey), ad-Dukhan (smoke), az-Zukhruf (Ornaments), Ma'ida (The Table), an-Naml (Ants), al-Kahf (the Cave) and an-Nazi'at (The Snatchers). These chapters include a semi-autobiography of the prophet Moses. His story in the Holy Quran offers masterful description of the conflict between him and the Pharaoh of Egypt. It also describes the senseless brutality of the Pharaoh. The analysis of the different speakers' use of language by employing Searle's classification of the speech acts would help uncover their power differences in the Quranic story. Theoretical Framework

This study adopts Speech Act Theory as a tool for performing the linguistic analysis of the interactions in the Quranic story. More specifically, it concentrates on Searle's (1979) classification of speech acts, or illocutionary acts. Speech act theory is concerned with how meaning and action related to language. It explains how speech is translated into action. It attempts to show how the addresser/ speaker expresses his own intention through his use of language/ illocutionary speech acts and how the addressee/ hearer interprets and recognizes that intention through his actions. The success of this kind of communication depends on the interpretation and response of the hearer to the speaker's utterances/ illocutionary speech acts. "Some examples of these are statements, questions, commands, promises, and apologies. Whenever a speaker utters a sentence in an appropriate context with certain intentions, he performs one or more illocutionary acts. In general an illocutionary act consists of an illocutionary force F and a propositional content P. For example, the two utterances You will leave the room and Leave the room! have the same propositional content, namely that you will leave the room; but characteristically the first of these has the illocutionary force of a prediction and the second has the illocutionary force of an order. Similarly, the two utterances Are you going to the movies? and When will you see John? both characteristically have the illocutionary force of questions but have different propositional contents." (Searle and Vanderveken 1985, p.109) This study adopts Searle's view of speech acts (illocutionary acts). He sees that the speech act is the basic unit of communication. By using an illocutionary act a speaker attempts to achieve three effects. First, he tries to express a psychological state. Second, he tries to make the hearer comprehend his expression. Third, he tries to make the hearer acts in a particular way. The context and the situation in which the illocutionary act is made are very important to determine the intended meaning of the speaker. This study attempts an analysis of the characters' intention at the time of speaking, with a view to determining the degree of power which governs the relationships between the interlocutors in the Quranic story. According to Searle, there are five major categories of illocutionary acts: 1. Representatives/ Assertives: They commit the speaker to something being the case. The different kinds are: suggesting, putting forward, swearing, boasting, claiming, concluding, etc. Example: ``No one makes a better cake than me''.2. Directives:They try to make the addressee perform an action. The different kinds are: asking, ordering, requesting, inviting, advising, begging. Example: ``Could you close the window?''.

3. Commisives:They commit the speaker to doing something in the future. The different kinds are: promising, planning, vowing, betting, opposing, threatening. Example: ``I'm going to Paris tomorrow''.4. Expressives: They express how the speaker feels about the situation. The different kinds are: thanking, apologising, welcoming, deploring, congratulating. Example: ``I am sorry that I lied to you''.5. Declarations: They change the state of the world in an immediate way. Examples: ``You are fired, I swear, I beg you''. Searle believes that sentences carry in their structure indications of their illocutionary force. As a result, questions are used to request information, imperatives to command, and assertions to make statements of fact. In addition to these direct uses, there are indirect ones: rhetorical questions may be used to make assertions (Aren't they intelligent?), imperatives to make offers (Have a seat), and assertions to make commands (You will help your friend). These cases constitute the issue of indirect speech acts, i.e. cases in which "one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another" (Searle 1979, p. 60). This study partly attempts to investigate the extent to which Searle's classification of speech acts is applicable to the dialogues involved in the Quranic story of the prophet Moses (pbuh).Power Relationships According to Foucault, power is not essentially something that institutions possess and use against people and individuals. He sees that power is possessed by anyone, individuals or institutions, and operated through daily interactions between them. "Power must be analyzed as something which circulates, or as something which only functions in the form of a chain . . . Power is employed and exercised through a netlike organization . . . Individuals are the vehicles of power, not its points of application" (M. Foucault 1980, p. 98). Foucault disagrees with the negative idea of power as prohibition, insisting that "what makes power hold good, and what makes it accepted, is simply the fact that it doesn't only weigh on us as a force that says no, but that it traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, produces discourse." Wrong comments on this saying "This is power as 'power to,' power as generalized capacity to bring about outcomes, par excellence" (Wrong 1988, p. xxiii)

Powerful Individuals and institutions use language as a means to constitute power and, at the same time, to maintain it. According to Ervin-Tripp el al. (1984), powerful people get what they want. Power is important in guaranteeing attention to the speaker. If a speaker enjoys effective power, he is more likely to be given attention, and will probably make little effort to get the floor. Contributors to Kramarae et al.'s collection on language and power demonstrate that power is "a system of relationships running through the whole of society, producing incongruent and often conflicting definitions of reality" (Kramarae et al. 1984b, p.15). Similarly, Fairclough maintains that power in discourse concerns with powerful participants "controlling and constraining the contributions of non-powerful participants" (Fairclough 1989, p. 46). He distinguishes between three kinds of such constraints. There are constraints on (a) content or what is said or done; (b) relations that people engage in during discourse, and (c) subjects, or positions people occupy at the time of an interaction. He argues that "If therefore there are systematic constraints on the contents of discourse and on the social relationships enacted in it and the social identities enacting them, these can be expected to have long-term effects on the knowledge and beliefs, social relationships, and social identities of an institution or society" (Fairclough 1989, p. 74). This view agrees with Spender's definition of power as "the capacity of some persons to produce effects sometimes contrary to their interest" (1984, 194-5). Fairclough (1989) sees that requesting someone to do something depends on possessing more power. If the speaker has more power than the addresser, he makes requests directly. That makes the power relationship explicit. But when the speaker makes indirect request, he may enjoy an implicit power. In analyzing dialogues in Moses' story in the Holy Quran, it was found that requesting does not necessarily come from more powerful people; in some occasions, a less powerful speaker (the prophet Moses for example) would request things from Allah Almighty, the most powerful. In this case a request usually is a plea (supplication in this previous example). Wrong sees that power is constructed through some forms: authority which carries an acceptance of wielding power, force which treats the power subject as a physical or a biological object, manipulation which is considered as concealed power, and unlike manipulation is persuasion. (Wrong 1979, pp. 67-68). Kramarae et al. (1984b) maintain that most of these effects could be realized through language, with the exception of physical force.Sample analysis

In the following section the application of Searle's Speech Act theory is going to be carried out analyzing some extracted dialogues taking place within Moses' story in the Holy Quran. This analysis may allow the reader watching the events as if it is live. Moses is a forthright man. He believes in speaking his mind and helping weaker members of society. Whenever he witnesses oppression or cruelty, he finds it impossible to stop himself from intervening. Allah tells us that when Moses sees one of the Israelites fighting against an Egyptian, he steps into the fight and strikes the Egyptian one blow. Because of Moses' great strength, the Egyptian has immediately died. Moses expresses deep regret for this crime: "This is from the work of Satan. Indeed, he is a manifest, misleading enemy. "... " He also says, "My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself, so forgive me" " ..." (Quran 28:15-16) Because of this unintentionally-committed crime, Moses decides to flee Egypt and go to Midian, the country that lay between Syria and Egypt. And when he arrives at the desert oasis, he finds shepherds watering their flocks. This sample analysis is concerned with the dialogue taking place between Moses and some characters (the two daughters and their father mentioned in the Holy Quran). It shows how illocutionary acts reflect the power relations between the interlocutors. Moses notices the two women and their flock of sheep. They are standing well back, hesitant to approach the waterhole. Moses is a man of honor. He approaches them and asks about their matter." " ( 22-23)* What is your circumstance? (Directive/ Interrogative)

* . We do not water until the shepherds dispatch [their flocks]; and our father is an old man. (Representative) In this encounter, it is obvious that Moses is more powerful than the addressee, the two girls, as they are in need of his help. They use a representative instead of a directive (They do not say: water the flocks for us, for example). This shows disempowerment.

In the second encounter; when one of the girls comes to tell Moses her father's offer, there is a development of her attitude as she knows that he is alone sitting under the shade of the tree, in need of help. Here, She is more powerful." "( 25)* . My father invites you that he may reward you for having watered for us. (Offer)

Her developing power also appears when she asks her father to hire Moses. She uses a directive. " " ( 26) O my father, hire him. Indeed, the best one you can hire is the strong and the trustworthy. (Request)

In the encounter of Moses and the two girls' father, the elderly man offers Moses the safety and security of his own family. Moses accepts his offer." * " ( 27-28) * . I wish to wed you one of these, my two daughters, on [the condition] that you serve me for eight years; but if you complete ten, it will be [as a favor] from you. And I do not wish to put you in difficulty. You will find me, if Allah wills, from among the righteous. (Commissive)

* . That is [established] between me and you. Whichever of the two terms I complete - there is no injustice to me, and Allah, over what we say, is Witness. (Commissive) This encounter shows that the relationship between Moses and the elderly man is one of equality. Each of them commits himself to do something. The father commits himself to wed Moses one of his daughters if he works for him for 8 or 10 years. Moreover, Moses commits himself to fulfill this condition.

Out of this sample analysis, we can find out that illocutionary acts performed by the interlocutors in light of speech act theory are very expressive to manifest power relationships. The speakers reflect and express their behavior and attitude through their use of language. Review of Literature Yasmine A. Salah El-din in a study titled "The Power of Language in the Language of Power: A Reading of Al-Aswani's The Yacoubian Building" focuses on the concept of power relations as exemplified in Alaa Al Aswani's novel The Yacoubian Building. The researcher adopts Searle's (1979) classification of speech acts, as well as Brown and Levinson's (1987) Politeness Model. She proves that the way the characters act, and react, is sometimes surprising to the reader. Human relations need to be investigated in more depth, from different perspectives. This can help us understand each other better, our motives and those of people we interact with. When we know how and why power develops, and what changes it brings about, we can probably do better in developing our social relations, and therefore contribute to the improvement of the country. Cary Buzzelli and Bill Johnston (2001) examine, in their article Authority, Power, and Morality in Classroom Discourse, the complex relationships among authority, power, and morality in classroom discourse. They begin by suggesting that teacher authority is an ever-present feature of classroom interaction. They further point out how theoretical and empirical research has demonstrated convincingly that teaching nearly always involves unequal power relations and at the same time is fundamentally moral in nature. They then outline Bernstein's (Pedagogy, symbolic control and ideology: Theory, research, critique, Taylor & Francis, Bristol, PA, 1996) notion of pedagogic discourse as a means of clarifying the relations among authority, power, and morality as they are played out in classroom discourse. They analyze an extract from a transcript of a writer's chair activity in a third-grade US classroom, focusing on two dilemmas of authority that the teacher faced in this activity; They suggest that these dilemmas can be best conceptualized in terms of Bernstein's twin notions of regulative discourse and instructional discourse, the two components of pedagogic discourse which reflect the twin notions of power and morality. Finally, they consider the implications of the analysis for a deeper understanding of the moral dimension of classroom discourse. Hans J. Ladegaard's (2012) article Rudeness as a discursive strategy in leadership discourse: Culture, power and gender in a Hong Kong workplace reports on an ongoing research project on leadership discourse and gender in Hong Kong workplaces. It analyses excerpts from a business meeting in a small factory outlet involving three male and three female staff. The two female leaders use jocular insults and other forms of verbal abuse repeatedly, and it is argued that the two leaders discursive strategies are best characterized as instrumental rudeness, the purpose of which is to attack their interlocutors face and thereby (re)activate aspects of their own power. Jocular insults may function as a means by which superiors maintain their position in the workplace, but also as a socially acceptable strategy by which subordinates challenge their leaders. In this context, however, these strategies are used predominantly by the two leaders, and it is argued that a careful consideration of the socio-pragmatic norms of the micro- and the macro-context may explain why the subordinates accept these insults. The article suggests that huge power distance and hierarchical relationships may explain why these leaders demeaning discourses are not directly challenged. Finally, the article suggests that normatively masculine and feminine management styles may be culture specific, which reiterates the need for a careful consideration of socio-cultural values and norms.

In Almut Josepha Koester's (2002) article The performance of speech acts in workplace conversations and the teaching of communicative functions, he analyzes the performance of speech acts in a corpus of workplace conversations. The researcher shows that speech acts are not usually performed directly and that it is necessary to look beyond the individual utterance to see how particular communicative acts unfold within a conversational sequence. The final section of the article discusses relevance of these findings for the teaching of functional language. In Barbara Kryk-Kastovsky's (2009) article titled Speech acts in Early Modern English court trials, he concerns the extent to which old language data can be considered faithful records of the language of the past. He investigates whether the notion of speech act, an analytical tool employed by synchronic pragmatics, can be of use to diachronic pragmatics. He proves that the courtroom discourse of 17th century England is amenable to an analysis in terms of Speech Act Theory as conceived of for Modern English usage. Court trial records are particularly suitable for such an analysis due to their linguistic characteristics (an abundance of illocutions and perlocutions as well as question-and-answer exchanges, interpretable as indirect speech acts). A central notion developed is speech act network, which is particularly suitable for the analysis of complex courtroom discourse consisting of interrelated illocutions and their corresponding perlocutions. His study demonstrates that diachronic speech act theory is a useful framework for a historical pragmaticist, and that it can reveal the interdependence between the identifiability of speech acts and the socio-historical conditions of the times when the speech acts were used.Sequence of the study

Chapter One: Introduction

Purpose of the Study

Study Questions

Data of the Study

Chapter Two: Review of Literature

Theoretical Framework:

-Speech Act Theory

-Searle's Classification of Speech Acts

-Power RelationsChapter Three and Four:The Application of Speech Act Theory as Exemplified in Searle's Classification (1979) as well as the Concept of Power Relations to the dialogues taking place within Moses Story in the Holy Quran: Dialogues between Allah the Almighty (the most powerful) and Moses Dialogues between Moses and the Pharaoh (chapter three) Dialogues between Moses and others in the whole story (chapter four)

Chapter Five: Summary and Conclusion

Answering Research Questions

Finding of Results

Further Studies

ReferencesMcCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. Trans. Colin Gordon et al. New York: Pantheon.

Searle, John/ Vanderveken, Daniel. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic: Introduction to the Theory of Speech Acts, chapter 5. Cambridge, Britain: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, John. 1979.Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.M. Foucault, (1980), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 19721977, London: Harvester Press.Wrong. D. (1979).Power: its Forms. Bases. And Uses.Oxford: Blackwell.Evrin-Tripp, S., M. O'Conner. And J. Rosenberg. (1984). "Language and power in the family. In C. Kramarae et al. (eds.),116-135.Kramarae, C, M. Schulz, and W. O'Barr (eds.). (1984a). Language and Power. _Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.Spender,D. (1984). "Defining Reality: A powerful Tool." In C. Kramarae. Et al. (eds.). 194-205