

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
Reflection: Beyond FTAs
المؤلف:
Jonathan Culpeper and Michael Haugh
المصدر:
Pragmatics and the English Language
الجزء والصفحة:
208-7
23-5-2022
920
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

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)