

Grammar


Tenses


Present

Present Simple

Present Continuous

Present Perfect

Present Perfect Continuous


Past

Past Simple

Past Continuous

Past Perfect

Past Perfect Continuous


Future

Future Simple

Future Continuous

Future Perfect

Future Perfect Continuous


Parts Of Speech


Nouns

Countable and uncountable nouns

Verbal nouns

Singular and Plural nouns

Proper nouns

Nouns gender

Nouns definition

Concrete nouns

Abstract nouns

Common nouns

Collective nouns

Definition Of Nouns

Animate and Inanimate nouns

Nouns


Verbs

Stative and dynamic verbs

Finite and nonfinite verbs

To be verbs

Transitive and intransitive verbs

Auxiliary verbs

Modal verbs

Regular and irregular verbs

Action verbs

Verbs


Adverbs

Relative adverbs

Interrogative adverbs

Adverbs of time

Adverbs of place

Adverbs of reason

Adverbs of quantity

Adverbs of manner

Adverbs of frequency

Adverbs of affirmation

Adverbs


Adjectives

Quantitative adjective

Proper adjective

Possessive adjective

Numeral adjective

Interrogative adjective

Distributive adjective

Descriptive adjective

Demonstrative adjective


Pronouns

Subject pronoun

Relative pronoun

Reflexive pronoun

Reciprocal pronoun

Possessive pronoun

Personal pronoun

Interrogative pronoun

Indefinite pronoun

Emphatic pronoun

Distributive pronoun

Demonstrative pronoun

Pronouns


Pre Position


Preposition by function

Time preposition

Reason preposition

Possession preposition

Place preposition

Phrases preposition

Origin preposition

Measure preposition

Direction preposition

Contrast preposition

Agent preposition


Preposition by construction

Simple preposition

Phrase preposition

Double preposition

Compound preposition

prepositions


Conjunctions

Subordinating conjunction

Correlative conjunction

Coordinating conjunction

Conjunctive adverbs

conjunctions


Interjections

Express calling interjection

Phrases

Sentences


Grammar Rules

Passive and Active

Preference

Requests and offers

wishes

Be used to

Some and any

Could have done

Describing people

Giving advices

Possession

Comparative and superlative

Giving Reason

Making Suggestions

Apologizing

Forming questions

Since and for

Directions

Obligation

Adverbials

invitation

Articles

Imaginary condition

Zero conditional

First conditional

Second conditional

Third conditional

Reported speech

Demonstratives

Determiners


Linguistics

Phonetics

Phonology

Linguistics fields

Syntax

Morphology

Semantics

pragmatics

History

Writing

Grammar

Phonetics and Phonology

Semiotics


Reading Comprehension

Elementary

Intermediate

Advanced


Teaching Methods

Teaching Strategies

Assessment
The two classic pragmatic politeness theories
المؤلف:
Jonathan Culpeper and Michael Haugh
المصدر:
Pragmatics and the English Language
الجزء والصفحة:
202-7
21-5-2022
1003
The two classic pragmatic politeness theories
The conversational-maxim view: Lakoff (1973) and Leech (1983)
The classic theories of politeness draw, as one might guess, on the classic pragmatic theories, notably, Gricean conversational implicature and speech act theory, as outlined. Given that pragmatic theory has moved on, this is one of the weaknesses of those politeness theories. The bulk of the work in politeness studies has been based on or related to Brown and Levinson (1987), which we will outline in the following section. First, however, we will also note an alternative theory, mainly as a way of illustrating how politeness can interact with the Cooperative Principle (see section 4.2.2).
Robin Lakoff (1973) was the first to posit a maxim-based view of politeness. In brief, she proposes that there are two rules of pragmatic competence, one being “be clear”, which is formalized in terms of Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principle, and the other being “be polite”, which is formalized in terms of a Politeness Principle. The latter Politeness Principle consists of the following maxims: (1) don’t impose, (2) give options, and (3) make your receiver feel good. Lakoff notes that sometimes the need for clarity would clash with the need for politeness. Leech (1983) also posits a Politeness Principle, one which is more elaborate than that of Lakoff. The central mechanism of his Politeness Principle is involved in “trade-offs” with the Cooperative Principle. As an illustration, consider this event. At the annual general meeting of an undergraduate university society at which the major business was to vote for the president for the coming year, an author of this topic witnessed that a candidate for the presidency had gained only one vote from the forty people present in the room. The candidates had been waiting outside, and the first author of this topic was asked to summon them inside to receive the results.
Upon meeting the candidate who got one vote, the candidate immediately asked him how many votes she had gained. He could not reveal the truth, since that would upset her; on the other hand, he did not want to be seen to be lying. Cornered by her question, he decided to be vague and replied, not many. His response thus avoided both a prototypical lie and the upset to the hearer that would have accompanied a more cooperative – in Grice’s sense (1975) – reply. By flouting Grice’s maxim of Quantity (1975) (not many relative to what?), he hoped that she would draw the implicature that a more cooperative reply would have been more damaging to her, and that was why he had been uncooperative. In Leech’s (1983) terms, the reason why he had expressed himself unco-operatively was to uphold the Politeness Principle, which Leech defines as: “Minimize (other things being equal) the expression of impolite beliefs ... (Maximize (other things being equal) the expression of polite beliefs)” (1983: 81). More specifically, he had abided by the Approbation maxim (minimize dispraise of other/maximize praise of other), by minimizing “dispraise” of the candidate. The other maxims of the Politeness Principle are: Tact, Generosity, Modesty, Agreement and Sympathy (see Leech 1983: 131–139, for details). The key point is that the Cooperative Principle accounts for how people convey indirect meanings, the Politeness Principle accounts for why people convey indirect meanings.
الاكثر قراءة في pragmatics
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة
الآخبار الصحية

قسم الشؤون الفكرية يصدر كتاباً يوثق تاريخ السدانة في العتبة العباسية المقدسة
"المهمة".. إصدار قصصي يوثّق القصص الفائزة في مسابقة فتوى الدفاع المقدسة للقصة القصيرة
(نوافذ).. إصدار أدبي يوثق القصص الفائزة في مسابقة الإمام العسكري (عليه السلام)