The Pragmatics of Blackmail in English and Iraqi-Arabic

Verbal offences are language crimes that are committed by mere utterances of certain words or expressions whether they are accompanied by physical acts or not. One of those crimes is blackmail. This crime has been studied and compared legally but its linguistic aspect has not been given much attention. This study tries to emphasize this crime pragmatically and contrastively in English and Arabic. No study has shed light on such aspects concerning the study under investigation. The researcher has not found any previous related study to get a benefit from about this topic. There is an attempt to achieve the following aim which is shedding light on the similarities and differences in strategies of blackmail between English and Arabic in terms of speech act, implicature and impoliteness theories. The present study hypothesizes the following: English and Arabic are different from each other in expressing blackmail in terms of speech act theory, implicature and impoliteness. To support or refute the hypothesis of the study, data consisting of 20 complaints in English and Arabic were collected from Courts of Appeal in Iraq, Britain and the United States. They are analyzed in terms of an eclectic model. The results arrived at are: English and Arabic are different in blackmail in terms of the locutionary acts and illocutionary acts. Concerning impoliteness, the same strategies are applied to the verbal offence in both languages. As far as implicature is concerned, the two languages are different in blackmail.


Introduction
The legal field, to which law belongs, constitutes an independent culture with powerful vocational norms that give sense and reinforcement to the individual's behavior.That is why, even a lawyer and client, who belong to the same culture will go through the client-lawyer misunderstanding because of the cultural dissimilarities which result from legal culture (Betti and Hashim, 2018: 277).
It is not always simple to avoid conflicts between the right to free speech and the right to have protection against unwarranted damage to reputation caused by false accusation (Algburi and Igaab, 2021: 31).The purpose of speech in a given context is to generate some kind of action.Every sentence is structured to carry certain intention.Intentional human action is the concern of pragmatics.Intentional action is intended to achieve a goal, through some kind of plan, give some beliefs about state of things.This results in "speech acts" that are carried out directly or indirectly.When speaking, all sorts of things can be done, from aspirating a consonant, to constructing a relative clause, to insulting a guest, to starting a war.These are all speech acts.Speech act theory has been one of the basic ingredients of pragmatics for a long time (Betti, Igaab & Al-Ghizzi, 2018: 253).
Crimes are committed by uttering words or expressions, writing or signifying in a public way like blackmail.It consists of two elements which are physical and internal (actus reus and mens rea).Blackmail is criminalized or not according to different points of view within the countries (Igaab, and Altai, 2018: 289).
Criminalizing blackmail is different from one country into another.So, it is problematic.Blackmail is regarded as a crime of opportunity and exploitation for some (Igaab, and Tarrad, 2019: 61).

Research Questions
What are the similarities and differences in strategies of blackmail between English and Arabic in terms of speech act theory, implicature and impoliteness?

Aims of the Study
The study aims at showing to what extent English and Arabic are different in expressing strategies of blackmail in terms of speech act theory, implicature and impoliteness.Published by IDEAS SPREAD

Hypotheses of the Study
This study hypothesizes the following: English and Arabic are different from each other in expressing strategies of blackmail in terms of speech act theory, implicature and impoliteness.
1.4 Literature Review 1.4.1 The Legal Aspect of Blackmail Idiomatically, blackmail is threatening the victim to harm him/her or any person relating to the victim.So, the victim is to be forced to give the blackmailer money, or putting the victim's signature or seal on a legal paper for the blackmailer's benefit (Al-Abdullah, 2013: 17 andAl-Ma'moury, 2006: 370).Radfield (2012: 311-312) defines blackmail as being "a close cousin to robbery.It is the extortion of money by threats rather than by violence." A person becomes guilty of blackmail if he/she wants to gain for him/ herself or another one or he/she intends to cause loss to another.So, unwarranted demand with menaces is made but that demand will be warranted in terms of two conditions: a) if a person believes that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; b) using the menaces is an appropriate means to reinforce the demand (Elliot andQuinn, 2004: 171 andMustafa, 1964: 536) while in the Iraqi penal code, there is no clause item which criminalizes such a crime but it is included within other crimes like a threat.Actus Reus of blackmail is a demand with menaces must be available.In mens rea, the defendant has an intention to make the demand with menaces.That demand must be made to make a financial gain or to cause a financial loss (Elliot and Quinn, 2004: 172;and Ubaid, 1985: 428-429).

The Pragmatic Aspect of Blackmail
Blackmail is considered an ancient crime but it has adopted itself to modern technology (Wasik, 1990: 22).There is a debate over blackmail prohibition.Lindgren (1984) was faced with a trouble because of what he called the paradox of blackmail.He explained it in the following way: to threaten a person to expose a criminal act unless he is paid money is committing blackmail, or to threaten to expose a sexual affair unless he is given a job is also committing blackmail (Al-Seady, and Al-Sehlani, 2002: 40).It is a legal right to expose or threaten to expose the crime or affair, and it is a legal right to be paid money or given a job but the combination of both rights is blackmail.So, if exposing or threatening to expose is legal and seeking money or a job is also legal but their combination is illegal.This is what is called the paradox of blackmail (Dripps, 2009: 249;Fitzpatrick, 1998:38 andKatz, 1996: 133;Igaab, 2010: 28).
Blackmailers threaten the victims' lives or threaten to burn their houses or to accuse any person of an infamous crime, with intent to extort or gain money (Ginsburg and Schechtman, 2016: 1851-1852).
In English, although the debate over blackmail prohibition is still held with the existence of two opposite viewpoints, blackmail should be prohibited because it is regarded as a type of exploitation (Igaab, and Kareem, 2018: 99).It is blameworthy; it is accompanied with malicious motivation; it is bad for the merchants in their business; exposing the information embarrasses the victim; it does not affect the reputation but also the interests and privacy.So, it is totally refused by the Iraqi-Arabic community without tending to find more than one point of view about its prohibition.The blackmailer threatens the victim to reveal some information which is not his, it belongs to the society or to the blackmail victim (Igaab, 2015: 54).
Blackmail is better to be described as an unproductive and involuntary exchange.It is considered as an incentive for invasion of privacy.Everyone has their privacy away from prying eyes (Rosenberg, 2008: 357-358 andKatz, 1996: 141;Al-Seady, 2002b: 13).

Speech Act of Blackmailing
Language is a powerful means of human communication.Via using language, the sender can deliver his/her intended meaning to the receiver.According to Grice, the communicative activity should go smoothly and straightforwardly.Thus, Grice postulates the cooperative principle in that people should be cooperative in their communication (Betti and Yaseen, 2020: 43) The theory of speech acts is, no doubt, one of the main theories in pragmatics.It is originated in the ideas of J. L. Austin expressed in the series of his lectures "How to Do Things with Words" and then developed by Searle's (1975) and others.Austin's basic idea behind his theory of SAs is that utterances (Us) do not only bear meaning, but rather they do things, i.e., perform actions (Levinson, 2017, p. 199;Al-Sheikh, (2006a: 75).In Austin's words, "to say something is to do something" (1962).To perform a SA is "an attempt at doing something purely by speaking" (Trask, 1999, p. 189).Yule (1996: 47) defines SAs as "actions performed via utterances (Betti and Published by IDEAS SPREAD Hasan, 2020: 43).Birner (2013: 192) elaborates on this as "imperatives canonically have the illocutionary force of a command (or, relatedly a request, invitation, suggestion, etc.-essentially milder forms of a scale ranging from "suggestion" to a "command")".But, in the case of indirect speech act there is no correspondence between the linguistic form and the illocutionary force of the sentence; for example, to have a request in the form of interrogative or declarative (Betti and Hashim, 2021: 34).
Blackmail as a crime is both illocutionary and perlocutionary acts.It is an act of blackmailing, harming the victim by forcing him/her to pay an amount of money; to do something; or not to do something in order not to reveal his personal secrets or his family members'.The effect is paying money unwillingly.The blackmailer does not care whether that person can or cannot pay.The victim is forced to do anything to defend his reputation (Juris, 1988: 83-84).
With this crime, the victim will not behave freely and he will be coerced to pay money to make his secrets or private information be kept.In this way, blackmailers are described as being entrepreneurs who find a way to make money.It is like a process of pointing a gun towards the victim to get money.So, blackmail is similar to physical coercion (Juettner, 2009: 18;Igaab, and Abdulhasan, 2018: 90).

Research Design
To achieve the aim of the study and test its hypothesis, the following steps will be followed: 1. writing the literature review of blackmail from legal and pragmatic aspects; 5. arriving at a number of general conclusions with showing the similarities and differences between English and Arabic in terms of blackmail.

Data Collection
The data of this study are a number of complaints of blackmail.The complaints are 20 in number.The English data are taken from Juettner (2009) for blackmail cases and the English website: https://www.govinfo.gov/while the Arabic data are taken from judges of investigation in Nasiriya Court of Appeal and investigators in the police centre in Thi-Qar Province.The translation of the pragmatic and forensic linguistic terms into Arabic is taken from Ritchard, et al. (2007).Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics: English-English-Arabic and Yousif (2020)."Conversational Maxims in Pragmatics".

The Model
The model of the study is eclectic, i.e., it is taken from Grice (1967), Searle (1975) and Culpeper (1996Culpeper ( , 2005)).Following the model, English and Iraqi-Arabic cases will be analysed.Implicature and impoliteness are the same in both languages while speech act theory is different from English into Arabic (Al-Seady, 2002a: 34).With Speech act theory in Arabic, there are different points of view and opinions presented by Arab linguists, grammarians, and rhetoricians.But they agreed on the distinction made among locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts.So, cases of both languages will be analysed following the same model by Searle (1975) and Betti, and Igaab, 2018: 37).

Background
In this eclectic model, there is a background for every case.It includes a speech event and the problem of every case.

Implicature
In 1967, Grice first presented his theory of implicature.That was a shorter version of what was published in 1975 in a paper "Logic and Conversation".Related to implicature, he came with the cooperative principle and its related maxims.
For people to use ironic expressions, they must say something a nd imply another and this depends on the common awareness of the English usage by the speaker and the hearer (Allan, 1989: 4-5;and Betti and Khalaf, 2021: 20).Irony is generated by breaking Grice's maxims intentionally to communicate something (Black, 2006: 25).Implicature arises from the use of irony as it requires an implication for it to utter (Al-Sheikh, 2006b: 71).

Impoliteness
A great attention has been paid to politeness and a little attention to impoliteness.Impoliteness which is described as being a poor cousin of politeness has been neglected (Locher andBousfield, 2008: 1-2 andBousfield, 2008a: 71).
There is agreement on that politeness and impoliteness can be discussed together but no solid agreement exists on what impoliteness actually is.But they agree on a definition which is impoliteness as a behaviour that is face aggravating in a particular context.Such a definition is finally not enough and most researchers have suggested more elaborate definitions.According to Bousfield, impoliteness is defined as constituting the issuing of intentionally gratuitous and conflictive face threatening acts which are achieved on a purpose.To Culpeper, it is a communicative behaviour which intends to cause the "face loss" of a target or noticed by the target to be so.To Terkourafi, it happens when the expression which is used is not conventionalized related to the context of occurrence, there is a threat of the addressee's face (and through the speaker's face) but there is no face-threatening intention which is done to the speaker by the hearer (Al-Seady, 1998c: 79).
According to Bousfield and Culpeper, understanding the speaker's intentions by the hearer is the key for impoliteness while to Terkourafi, it is the rudeness rather than impoliteness.The fourth definition was presented by Locher and Watts.It is a negatively marked behaviour which has violated the social norms (Culpeper, 2011: 19-20).The result is negative evaluations like 'impolite, over-polite, rude, aggressive, insulting, sarcastic, etc', relying on the degree of the violation and the kind of conceptualization (Locher and Bousfield, 2008: 3-4).
Non-politic, inappropriate, and marked are the defining features of impoliteness.To watts, if the speaker intends to hurt the hearer's feelings, this is done via language.If the politic behaviour is missing, so that behaviour is described as being impolite, brash, inconsiderate, abrupt, rude.Locher and Watts define impoliteness as breaches of norms that are negatively evaluated by participants.Participants should share the same norms whether experiential or social to get rid of any difficulty in the interaction.With impoliteness, an offence is intentionally caused (rational management) and it is an intentional face-attack (Culpeper, 2008: 28, 30, 32).Increased indirectness may lead to increased impoliteness (Terkourafi, 2008: 46).
Face constitution or threatening are used as perlocutionary effects which depend on the recognition of the speaker's intention.For example, a shopper allows the others to pass.She does not intend to be polite but her behaviour was evaluated as polite and the evidence was thanking her for her behaviour (ibid: 58).
Impoliteness is a type of the perlocutionary effect.It includes the hearer thinking that the speaker is approaching/ withdrawing inappropriately given cultural norms whether this involves omitting an appropriate move or adding an inappropriate one.The effect of constituting face is a threat to face.Impoliteness is distinguished by being a face-threatening perlocutionary effect (Terkourafi, 2008: 60, 62).Culpeper (1996) defined impoliteness as "the use of strategies designed to attack face, and thereby cause social conflict and disharmony."Then in 2005, Culpeper refined this definition into the following: Impoliteness comes about when : (i) the speaker communicates face-attack intentionally, or (2) the hearer perceives and / or constructs behaviour as intentionally face-attacking, or a combination of (1) and (2).
In 2005, Culpeper suggested and developed a model where there is a shift in the focus of intentional, impolite faceattack away from a Brown and Levinson style 5-point model of offensive super-strategies.That model was proposed by Lachenicht (1983) and Culpeper (1996) and followed by others.The super-strategies are: (1) Bald, on Record Impoliteness The speaker intends to attack the face of the hearer and / or where the speaker does not have the power to (safely) say an impolite utterance.The utterance is expressed directly, clearly, and unambiguously (in a full way in accordance with Grice's maxims (1975)).For example, the use of taboo words (Hashim, and Betti, 2020: 299).
(2) Positive Impoliteness It is the attacking of the hearer's want to be approved of , which is clearly linked with Spencer-Oatey's (2002) quality face and elements of sociality face.It involves strategies used to damage the recipient's positive face wants.Instances of those strategies are 'ignore, snub the other, exclude the other from the activity, dissociate from the other, be disinterested, unconcerned, unsympathetic, use of inappropriate identity markers, use obscure or secretive language, seek disagreement, make the other feel uncomfortable, for example, do not avoid silence, joke, or use Published by IDEAS SPREAD small talk, use taboo words, call the other names, etc.' for example, 'shut up' which is regarded as an obstacle of speech (Igaab, 2010a: 22).
(3) Negative Impoliteness Culpeper makes a link between attacking your freedom of action and Spencer-Oatey's (2002) equity rights and then with association rights.It involves the use of strategies which damage the recipient's negative face wants.The examples of those strategies taken from Culpeper (1996) are 'frighten, condescend, scorn, or ridicule, invade the other's space, explicitly associate the other with a negative aspect, put the other's indebtedness on record, etc.' (Igaab and Al-Manhalawey, 2010: 43).( 4) Off-Record Impoliteness This super-strategy was introduced by Culpeper (2005) instead of the 'meta-strategic' nature of sarcasm.Here, the offence can be conveyed in a direct way in terms of implicature that could be cancelled.For example, threatening someone of beating him (Igaab, and Al-Bdeary, 2016: 43).
(5) Withhold Politeness With the absence of politeness, impoliteness may exist.For example, a person does not thank the other for giving him a present.Such a model has been re-explained since there is a problem with a bold, on record strategy because it is not found outside of the theorist's vacuum (Culpeper, 2013: 5;Bousfield, 2008a: 127-139 andBousfield, 2008b: 72-96).
Speech act theory was first put forth by Austin (1962) and further developed by Searle (1969Searle ( , 1979)).This theory is based on two major ideas.The first is that the meaning of an utterance is distinct from the function performed by that utterance which is called the force; and the second is that all utterances amount to the execution of an act (Collavin, 2011: 373 andBetti andMahdi, 2021: 17).
Austin made a three-fold distinction among utterances: locution, illocution, and perlocution.Locution refers to the actual words uttered; illocution indicates the force or intention beyond the words; and perlocution means the effect of the illocution on the hearer.For example, It's hot in here.(locution) I want some fresh air.(illocution) (Igaab, 2015a: 142).
Searle classified speech acts into direct and indirect.With direct speech acts, there is a direct relationship between the linguistic structure and the work they are doing (Al-Seady, 1998a: 83).For example, a sentence is declarative in form and a statement in function; interrogative and question; imperative and command.With indirect speech acts, there is a mismatch between the linguistic form and the illocutionary force (Igaab, 2010b: 153).I'd be jolly grateful if you could pull me out, sir.(The form is declarative and the function is a request) (Rṻhlemann, 2019: 23;Bolkhtot, 2018: 111-113;Birner, 2013: 192;Mey, 2004: 111-113;Peccei, 1999: 55 andGeis, 1995: 122-124).In this way, how can the hearers know what the real illocutionary force is when it exists in an indirect speech act?Here, the benefit of the felicity conditions comes (Dehham, Betti, and Hussein, 2021: 12).An example of a direct speech act: Please, close the door.

An example of an indirect speech act:
It might help to close the door.(McAllister, 2015: 29;and Igaab, 2015b: 22).Published by IDEAS SPREAD

English Data: Analysis and Discussion
Ten cases are under an analysis according to an eclectic model.This model consists of the background, speech acts, implicature and impoliteness.

a. Background
In 2008, a British bank revealed that it had paid nine million Euros (about $13.11 million) to a former employee, and his accomplice since 2003.That employee had threatened to publish secret documents about the accounts of some of the bank's German clients if the bank did not give him millions of Euros.

b. Speech acts
The two verbs "threaten and publish" are illocutionary verbs.The bank officials cannot phone the police because they fear that if they expose this former employee's actions to the police, he may immediately release the sensitive information about the bank's clients and officials.This is the perlocutionary effect (Al-Seady, 1998b: 64)..

a. Background
In 2003, Vigan, the burglar, broke into a yacht which was possessed by a British cricket player.Vigan thought that there might be some money and valuable objects to sell but he found videotapes of that player and his wife in bed together.Vigan wrote to the player saying that he had them.He told the player that he would not publish the video on the Internet if the player paid him.

b. Speech acts
"Had and publish" are illocutionary acts with a perlocutionary act which is the player is forced to pay Vigan what he wants to stop him publishing that video.Something is horrible when that video is exposed to people.It negatively affects the player's honour, reputation, and future.Vigan does not intend to harm the victims or damage their reputation but to enrich himself .

a. Background
In 2008, Hogan was a consultant for the Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency, a state agency which charged with upgrading high-speed internet access.That agency tried to terminate Hogan's job.So, he threatened them by revealing a conflict of interest in contract awards.b.Speech acts "Threaten and reveal" are illocutionary verbs.Exposing such a conflict has a negative effect on the agency fame and work in the world.
Hogan claimed "I was fired for revealing a conflict of interest in contract awards.So, I'll sue the agency for wrongful termination."

a. Background
Timothy Wright was in a physical relationship with a female staff member at Crossroads.When an inmate knew about that relationship, he attempted to blackmail the female staff member by threatening her to tell other members of the staff and the head.

b. Speech acts
Telling others about such a physical relationship means a spiritual damage for that female by losing others' confidence in her work.
The inmate said, "Do what I want otherwise I'll make your relationship with that man public.I want you to understand.I am threatening you."

a. Background
Annoyed hackers attacked companies by threatening them to post defamatory material if they did not pay them money.

b. Speech acts
Those hackers know their legal position and how to protect themselves from any legal liability.Those companies realize that it is cheaper to pay $2.000 to the blackmailer instead of legal fees of $5.000, particularly when they are unwilling to admit that they were being blackmailed.
Hackers emailed companies, "Many clients are not told specifically that their pages will be changed to being libelous.So, do it.I'm threatening you to post certain defamatory material."

a. Background
In a case of computer eavesdropping, the official netted the blackmailer $ 350.000 because the latter threatened the official to reveal certain financial transactions to the tax authorities.

b. Speech acts
Exposing those transactions to the tax authorities willmake that official lose his job in the government.
The blackmailer said, "I know about your financial transactions.What do you think of the tax authorities.I'll reveal them to the authorities."

a. Background
In 2009, Stephen's vehicle that was being driven by his son, was pulled over to an area near the police centre.When the officers achieved a "live stop" impoundment of the car, they found cocaine in the car cover.On the pretext of violation of proper procedure like valid registration, the officers arrested the son for "well over an hour" and eventually left him in a hostile area over thirty-five miles from home and without access to public transportation.

b. Speech Acts
"You want to come back home peacefully, give us $22.000".After threatening the son to expose what they saw in the car, he gave them that amount of money, otherwise he would be imprisoned.

a. Background
Jacob Hagopian, Senior US Magistrate Judge alleged that defendants like various ACI wardens, supervisors, correctional officers, and medical personnel, had subjected him to psychological warfare with the use of electronic surveillance which was concealed within the light fixture of the cells where he lived.Such devices were used to secretly watch him perform bodily functions and write legal work.

b. Speech Acts
They did this in circumstances where the defendant could easily overhear them and they meant him to hear them.The use of the verb "dropping" was to blackmail the victim to pay for them.Published by IDEAS SPREAD One of the police officers talked to the other officer, "I'm ready to drop a charge against that prisoner if he gives something valuable to us." 10. a. Background Mr. Man, an investigative journalist, and his team were accused of operating a blackmailing network.Mr. Man was the president of one of the press groups which published several investigative newspapers and weekly magazines which targeted high-level corruption.

b. Speech Acts
They threatened to disclose compromising information about local politicians and businessmen unless they bought advertising space from the newspapers belonging to their press group.
Mr. Man commented, "It is the only thing that we want from those politicians and businessmen is to buy advertising space or I'll disclose compromising information about them."

c. Implicature
In the blackmail cases, there is no implicature.

d. Impoliteness
Studying the use of impoliteness is so important in any communication which is not cooperative but hostile.In this study, impoliteness framework is based on Culpeper's (1996Culpeper's ( , 2005) ) which followed Brown and levinson's model of politeness (Mohammed and Abbas, 2015).
1.The former employee in the British bank uses a direct, clear and unambiguous threat with the bank.Then he tries to frighten the bank by publishing information which cannot be exposed because it will disbenefit the interests of the bank.Two strategies of impoliteness are used, which are bald on record and negative impoliteness.
2. Vigan told the player directly that he has videotapes in which there is a scandal if they are published.The player is forced to pay him what he wants because the former is horrified.Bald on record and negative impoliteness are also utilized.
3. Because the agency attempts to make Hogan lose his job, he makes them feel scared since he intends to expose some documents which affect their work negatively.So, the first and third strategies of impoliteness are utilized in this case.
4. Without hesitation or behaving secretly, the inmate went to that lady to tell her face to face that her relationship with Wright was known by him.So, she has to fulfill something for him in the work otherwise he would tell everybody of the staff about that secret relationship.She felt feared since such a behaviour would destroy her life.Like other cases, bald on record and negative impoliteness strategies are depended on.5.Those annoyed hackers know what they are doing.They blackmail the companies legally since they study every step of threatening them.Their intention to cause them a detrimental action frightens them.The same two strategies are followed in this case.
6.No ambiguity is with the blackmailer's asking for such a huge amount of money otherwise he will expose some secrets which may cause the loss of his job.That is why the official fears and decides to pay for that blackmailer.Thus, bald on record and negative impoliteness are utilized in this case.
7. The officers were so direct and clear when they asked Stephen's son to give them $22.000 otherwise he would be taken to prison.So, he was frightened because of what happened.Similarly, the first and third strategies of impoliteness are used.8. Observing the Senior US Magistrate Judge when he was subjected to psychological warfare, the defendants intended to do that to stop him pursuing his legal claims.Such an obvious threat made the judge feel embarrassed and worried.So, bald on record and negative impoliteness are used.9.In a prison, the two officers intended to make the prisoner hear them talking to each.If that defendant paid them an amount of money, they would drop the charge against him.Such a damaged and intentional behaviour makes him feel frightened.He has to pay for them to leave the prison.Again, bald on record and negative impoliteness are utilized.10.Mr. man's threatening local politicians and businessmen to expose sensitive information about them is intentional, direct and clear.Such a threat frightens such figures in the society.In the same way, the first and third strategies are utilized in this case.Published by IDEAS SPREAD Wminu galak ?ani ?aHib ?at9arraf.9eb hay ?iltaSSarufat.lish 9eb.9ala kulin ?itha ma tqibliin Sadaqty wallah ?afDhHitЗwa?amiss bisharafitЗ wasumu9titЗ.)

a. Background
Udey, an official in an office, asked the manager to cancel the days of his absence because many absences would decrease his salary.

b. Speech acts
Udey threatened the manger to publish some photos to expose his son on the You Tube.Such an action would destroy the son and his father socially.
-"Sir, it is better for you and me to cancel my absences otherwise I will expose your son on the YouTube."(?ustath ?imsaHGiyabaty ?aHsan ?ilak w-ili wa?illa ?afDhaH ?ibnek 9alyutyub.)6. a. Background Saleem, Suham's husband, wanted to marry another lady but his wife refused.So, he threatened her to publish a post on all the social media in which she has illegitimate relationships with men.

b. Speech Acts
By using the two illocutionary verbs 'threaten and publish' is to force her to accept his second marriage.

a. Background
Fatin, the head at the department of promotions in an institute, was asked by Karrar, an official at the same place, to be promoted illegally.When she refused to fulfill his request, he threatened her to publish her family's birthday photos on the social media.

b. Speech Acts
Such a threat may cause a scandal to her family in such a Muslim community."If you do not promote me, I will expose you by publishing your family's birthday photos."(?itha ma traqini ?afDhHich bnashir Siwar 9iid milad 9a?iltitЗ.)

a. Background
A party was held in a house among a group of girlfriends.One of those friends was a school manager's daughter, Ramla.The house owner's daughter, Sama was too lazy in the school.

b. Speech Acts
Sama's mother threatened the school manager to publish her daughter's personal photos and videos on the Face Book if she did not make her daughter pass the year.
In this case, there is a direct negative effect on the manager's professional life, reputation and future.
-"I do not want to hurt you, but if you do not accept to make my daughter pass this year, I will publish your daughter's photos and videos on the Face Book." (?ana ma riid ?athitiЗ bes tnachHiin binti wa?itha ma tirDhiin kal9ada ?anshirSiwar w-fidyuhat lbintitЗ 9alfays.)

a. Background
Ahmed was asked by a person, Jabir, to sell his house but Ahmed rejected.That person threatened Ahmed to publish a post in which he stole one of his relatives' money last year.

b. Speech Acts
Jabir wants to expose Ahmed as a thief to damage his reputation and life.All people whether in the house or his work, will disrespect him.
-"If you do not let me buy your house, I will say that you are a thief."(tbi9ly ?ilbet lu ?aguul ?intaHaramy.)10. a. Background Rasheed wanted to borrow some money from his brother's wife, Rasha but she refused.

b. Speech Acts
He began blackmailing her by telling her husband and all her relatives that she worked in a brothel.He had CDs that would be given to them as a scandal.
-"If you do not lend me money, I will expose you that you are working in the brothels and I have CDs to prove my speech."(tqarDhiny lu AfDhaH shuGlitЗ bibyuut ?ilda9ara w-9indy sidiyat t?akid HatЗyii.)c. Implicature In the blackmail cases, there is no implicature.d.Impoliteness 1.With directness and clarity, Khalid asked Alaa to do something otherwise he would publish posts against her.She was really frightened because something bad would happen to her.In this case, two strategies are utilized, which are bald on record and negative impoliteness.
The use of (xely) to order someone to do something by force and threaten her of doing something dangerous and bad against her, expresses impoliteness.
2. Yasir expresses his hatred and malice directly towards Suhaila's father.Threatening him to expose their love relationship makes the father feel scared.Again, the first and third strategies of impoliteness are used.Such a way of threatening and challenging an old man is impolite.
3. Direct hatred and aggression are clearly shown towards the station manager.After a clear threat, the manager is frightened because of what will happen.Similarly, bald on record and negative impoliteness are utilized.Threatening a man of exposing a relation with a lady who does not exist is impolite.
4. Such an unambiguous threat makes that lady feel scared, that is why, she presents a complaint against Luay.Like other cases, the same strategies are utilized.
Asking a girl to make a relationship with him otherwise he will expose her is impolite.5. Udey tells the manager directly and frankly to cancel his absences otherwise his son will be in a dangerous situation in the community by publishing some shameful photos.This causes fear and worry for the father and his son.Thus, bald on record and negative impoliteness strategies are used.Such a behavious expresses impoliteness.
6. Showing his direct and clear hatred towards his wife reflectes the first strategy of impoliteness.Using an abusive word 'dayHa' refers to the positive impoliteness.Feeling frightened pushes her to sue her husband.This is the third strategy of impoliteness.7. Karrar is so direct, clear without any ambiguity in his threatening Fatin to publish photos of her family birthday.Such exposure is a disaster to a lady among Arab people.Again, the first and third strategies of impoliteness are utilized.A husband becomes so dare to threaten his wife of saying that she is a lady who has illegitimate relations with men.How impolite he is !!! 8. Sama, as usual, failed in the exam.So, her mother intentionally kept Ramla's photos and videos to threaten her mother.Such a threat forced the manager to make Sama pass the year illegally and this was a crime against the learning and teaching aspects.Forcing a manager to make a lazy student pass the year is impolite.9. His direct hatred and malice to Ahmed reflect the first strategy of impoliteness.Jabir intends to do detrimental actions to Ahmed.Such a threat frightens Ahmed which indicates the third strategy of impoliteness.
Pressuring on a person to sell his house otherwise he will tell people that he is a thief even if it is a lie.This is really impoliteness.10.This direct, clear and unambiguous threat to Rasha was because of money.He was so greedy and opportunist.Then, Rasha was so frightened because of that threat.Either lending him money or exposing her among her relatives and neighabours is impolite.Published by IDEAS SPREAD

Conclusions
There are a number of conclusions which are arrived at through this study.These conclusions are illustrated by the following general conclusions, similarities and differences in blackmail between English and Arabic:

General Conclusions
1. Blackmail is considered as a crime of opportunity and a crime of exploitation.
2. Blackmail as a speech act is expressed by utterances.
3. Some disclosed and discreditable information revealed will harm or embarrass the victim in a public way.
4. Cases of blackmail and extortion involve the exchange of money for information, favour, protection or silence.
5. In everyday communication, understanding any utterance relies on the conventional symbols used by speakers to communicate and our knowledge we have about speakers and the situation where an utterance is made.So, by knowledge, the speaker's intention to convey is to be revealed.
6.If there is no perlocutionary act, there is no verbal offence.The perlocutionary act is the characteristic feature of the verbal offence.

Specific Conclusions
These conclusions include a number of similarities and differences.

Similarities
1. Concerning the term 'pragmatics', there is a correspondence between English and Arabic.The Western scientists' efforts and the ancient Arabs' are complementary in terms of the study of pragmatics.
2. English and Arabic are similar to each other in terms of the legal language and its features.
3. English and Arabic agree on the locutionary, illocutionary, and perolcutionary acts.The same is with direct and indirect speech acts.But they are different from each other in terms of the way of classifying speech acts.
4. In English, blackmail is expressed by a limited number of illocutionary verbs which are ' threaten, publish, reveal, blackmail, tell, attack, post, expose, drop, disclose, had'.Similarly, in Arabic, blackmail is expressed by a limited number of illocutionary verbs which are 'threaten, publish, harm, expose, blackmail, tell'.Those verbs have the same perlocutionary effect which is the negative effect on the victim.
This refutes the hypothesis which is English and Arabic are different from each other in expressing strategies of blackmail in terms of speech act theory.
5. Blackmail a as speech act has both illocutionary and perlocutionary acts.
6.Most crimes like murder, robbery, blackmail, etc, are accompanied with a threat.Threatening people verbally, that is, uttering words or expressions, includes insults, abuses.
13.With blackmail, the same two strategies of impoliteness are applied which are negative impoliteness and bald on record in both languages.
This point refutes the hypothesis in which both languages are different from each other in blackmail in terms of impoliteness.
7. Blackmail is socially unacceptable in English and the Iraqi-Arabic communities.
8.There is no implicature in blackmail.
This point refutes the hypothesis in which English and Arabic are different from each other in blackmail in terms of implicature.

Differences
1.According to the Criminal Code for England by the Law Commission No. 177 (1989), blackmail is a crime with a punishable clause but in Iraq, although blackmail is a deliberate crime, there is no punishable clause to criminalize it in the Iraqi penal code.
2. After presenting the points of similarity and difference above, the research question of this study is answered.

References
Abu-Zaid, N. S. (2009).Pragmatics of Literary Discourse: Principles and Procedures.Satif: Wisdom House for Publishing and Distribution.
2. analyzing the English and Arabic data according to an eclectic model; 3. discussing the data whether English or Arabic; 4. writing the examples in the Arabic section follows two steps which are: a) translating the examples into English and b) transliterating it.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.An Eclectic Model for Analysing Blackmail b. Speech ActsThen he alleged, "Defendants harassed me by talking about what I did in my cell and trying to blackmail me to stop pursuing my legal claims."9. a. BackgroundTwo police officers discussed the chances of them dropping a charge against the defendant in return for payment.

Table 1 .
A List of the Symbols of Arabic Phonemes(Betti, 2007: 409-410with modifications added by the researcher)