Pragmatic Analysis of Psalm 35

This study presents a pragmatic analysis of Psalm 35, an imprecatory psalm traditionally attributed to David, focusing on how language communicates meaning within its socio-religious context. The study is principally anchored in Searle’s (1969) Speech Act Theory, which provides a framework for identifying and interpreting the communicative functions of the psalmist’s utterances. Deixis, presupposition, implicature and relevance are employed as complementary pragmatic concepts to account for contextual reference, background assumptions, implied meanings and contextual interpretation. The analysis shows that Psalm 35 functions beyond lament as a strategic discourse in which the psalmist petitions God for justice, asserts personal innocence, and condemns hostile opponents. Directive speech acts predominate in appeals for divine intervention, while expressive acts convey emotional distress, indignation and trust in God. Deictic expressions establish relational distinctions among the psalmist, God and the enemies, reinforcing the opposition between the righteous sufferer and the wicked. Presuppositions concerning divine justice, righteousness and covenant faithfulness provide the assumptions underlying the petitions, while implicatures strengthen the moral and theological case against the enemies. The study further demonstrates that imprecatory expressions function primarily as rhetorical appeals for divine judgment rather than direct calls for personal revenge. Thus, Searle’s framework, complemented by pragmatic concepts, demonstrates how Psalm 35 achieves its communicative, persuasive and theological purposes.