

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
Frame-based
المؤلف:
Jonathan Culpeper and Michael Haugh
المصدر:
Pragmatics and the English Language
الجزء والصفحة:
221-7
26-5-2022
946
Frame-based
Terkourafi (e.g. 2001) is certainly not the first, or indeed only, scholar to have related politeness to the notion of a (cognitive) “frame” (Watts 2003; Locher 2004; and Locher and Watts 2005 do likewise). However, Terkourafi produces the most elaborate account of the frame-based approach to politeness, anchoring it in pragmatic theory. For this reason.
Terkourafi argues that we should analyze the concrete linguistic realizations (i.e. formulae) and particular contexts of use which co-constitute “frames”. This avoids problematic notions like directness. Moreover, “[i]t is the regular co-occurrence of particular types of context and particular linguistic expressions as the unchallenged realizations of particular acts that create the perception of politeness” (2005a: 248; see also 2005b: 213; our emphasis). It is through this regularity of co-occurrence that we acquire “a knowledge of which expressions to use in which situations” (2002: 197), that is, “experientially acquired structures of anticipated ‘default’ behavior” (ibid.). Note that we are tapping into experiential norms, and also that we are dealing with anticipated politeness. The fact that the expressions are not only regularly associated with a particular context but also go unchallenged is an important point. This feature seems to be similar to Haugh’s point that evidence of politeness can be found in, amongst other things, “the reciprocation of concern evident in the adjacent placement of expressions of concern relevant to the norms in both in that particular interaction” (2007b: 312). That we are dealing with regularities means that we can deploy quantitative as well as qualitative methodologies (a simplistic quantitative methodology, such as counting up a particular form, is not possible, however, as we must count up forms in particular contexts that are unchallenged).
Of course, it is not the case that such conventionalized formulae – the stuff of anticipated politeness – constitute the only way politeness is conveyed and understood. Terkourafi (e.g. 2001, 2005b) develops neo-Gricean pragmatics to account for more implicational/inferential modes. Hitherto, standard, classical Gricean accounts of politeness (e.g. Leech 1983) have made no explicit connection with generalized implicatures, instead discussing politeness in terms of the recovery of the speaker’s intentions in deviating from Gricean cooperativeness on a particular occasion (i.e. in terms of particularized implicatures). In the introduction to their second edition, Brown and Levinson (1987: 6–7) concede that they may have underplayed the role of generalized conversational implicatures. Terkourafi , in contrast, argues that, while politeness can involve full inferencing in a nonce context, what lies at its heart is a generalized implicature, that is, a level of meaning between particularized implicatures and fully conventionalized (non-defeasible) implicatures (cf. Levinson’s utterance-type meaning. More specifically, she argues that generalized implicatures arise from situations where the implicature is weakly context-dependent, requiring a minimal amount of contextual information relating to the social context of use in which the utterance was routinized and thus conventionalized to some degree. Her argument is neatly summarized here (Terkourafi 2005a: 251, original emphasis):
Politeness is achieved on the basis of a generalized implicature when an expression x is uttered in a context with which – based on the addressee’s previous experience of similar contexts – expression x regularly co-occurs. In this case, rather than engaging in full-blown inferencing about the speaker’s intention, the addressee draws on that previous experience (represented holistically as a frame) to derive the proposition that “in offering expression x the speaker is being polite” as a generalized implicature of the speaker’s utterance. On the basis of this generalized implicature, the addressee may then come to hold the further belief that the speaker is polite.
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)