Grammar
Tenses
Present
Present Simple
Present Continuous
Present Perfect
Present Perfect Continuous
Past
Past Continuous
Past Perfect
Past Perfect Continuous
Past Simple
Future
Future Simple
Future Continuous
Future Perfect
Future Perfect Continuous
Passive and Active
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
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
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
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
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
Conjunctions
Subordinating conjunction
Correlative conjunction
Coordinating conjunction
Conjunctive adverbs
Interjections
Express calling interjection
Grammar Rules
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
Linguistics
Phonetics
Phonology
Semantics
Pragmatics
Linguistics fields
Syntax
Morphology
Semantics
pragmatics
History
Writing
Grammar
Phonetics and Phonology
Semiotics
Reading Comprehension
Elementary
Intermediate
Advanced
Teaching Methods
Teaching Strategies
Reflection: Beyond FTAs
المؤلف:
Jonathan Culpeper and Michael Haugh
المصدر:
Pragmatics and the English Language
الجزء والصفحة:
208-7
23-5-2022
624
Reflection: Beyond FTAs
It is important to note that Brown and Levinson’s work is oriented to acts that threaten face, and facework that attempts to redress those threatening acts. What about acts that simply enhance face? An important merit of Leech’s Politeness Principle is that it is not confined to the management of potentially “impolite” acts (i.e. FTAs), such as asking somebody to do something for you, but also involves potentially “polite” acts (Leech 1983: 83) (i.e. face-enhancing acts), such as a compliment out of the blue. Leech’s Politeness Principle allows for the minimization of impolite beliefs and the maximization of polite beliefs. This helps account for why, for example, the direct command Have a drink at a social occasion, which would appear to be impolite in brusquely restricting the hearer’s freedom of action, in fact maximizes the polite belief that the hearer would like and would benefit from a drink but might be too polite to just take one. And what about acts that simply attack face – threats, insults, put-downs, sarcasm, mimicry and so on? Goffman (1967: 24–26) mentions “aggressive facework”. Clearly, politeness is not the issue here but rather “impoliteness”, an area we will attend to. Recent “relational” approaches (e.g. Locher and Watts 2005; Spencer-Oatey 2008) within politeness studies are based on the full range of facework, and locate potentially polite behaviors within that framework.
We should also note here that FTAs are acts, reflecting the fact that speech act theory underpins Brown and Levinson (1987). We already discussed the limitations of speech act theory. Speech act theory is discussed in relation to single short utterances with single functions, single speakers and single addressees. This ignores the multi-functionality and complexity of discourse situations, and the fact that speech acts are often constructed over a number of turns. Brown and Levinson (1987: 10) recognize that the adoption of speech act theory as a basis for their model has not been ideal: “speech act theory forces a sentence-based, speaker-oriented mode of analysis, requiring attribution of speech act categories where our own thesis requires that utterances are often equivocal in force”. The sort of decontextualized speech acts they use do not reflect the indeterminacies of utterances and the face-threatening ramifications they may have for any of the participants in a particular speech event. Their work includes no extended examples.
الاكثر قراءة في pragmatics
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

الآخبار الصحية
