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: Formulaic expressions across varieties of English
المؤلف:
Jonathan Culpeper and Michael Haugh
المصدر:
Pragmatics and the English Language
الجزء والصفحة:
108-4
9-5-2022
639
Reflection: Formulaic expressions across varieties of English
There can be differences in the frequency of occurrence of at least some routine expressions across different varieties of English, and in some cases these arise through generalized conversational implicatures that have become somewhat fossilized. The routine expressions tell me about it and you bet, for instance, occur more frequently in American English compared to British or Australian English.
Another instance is the use of rhetorical questions in response to polar (i.e. yes/no) questions. Schaffer offers a long-list of such rhetorical questions that are commonly used as retorts in American English.
Speakers can implicate through such responses not only “yes”, as in the two examples in listed in [4.19], but also “no”, as in the two examples listed in [4.20]. However, in being implicated via a tautology, that is, as (supposedly) having an “obvious” answer, the speaker also implicates that the original question was inapposite or inappropriate in some way. Given that the basic form of these utterances follows a recognizable and recurrent pattern, they are, as Schaffer (2005) argues, a strong candidate for treatment as a kind of utterance-type meaning. Interestingly, it was the “Pope question” that Bouton (1988) found L2 learners had difficulty interpreting – they clearly lacked the relevant utterance-type meaning. The fact that there are many such routine expressions, or preferred ways of saying things, is often relatively opaque to native speakers of English. However, it is all too familiar to those learning English as a second language, or even to those coming across routine expressions that are particular to a certain variety of English.
In sum, the neo-Gricean contribution to our understanding of pragmatic meaning representations, as we have discussed, has been two-fold. On the one hand, emphasis has been placed on the importance of a literal notion of what is said as a meaning representation that is potentially accessible but not necessarily accessed by users. On the other hand, the importance of a layer of presumptive or utterance-type meaning representation has been highlighted. While some scholars, particularly Relevance theorists as we shall see, have argued that these two levels of meaning representation are unnecessary (Carston 2002), such a conclusion, we would suggest, is premature given the way in which speakers can retreat to what is literally said in particular circumstances, on the one hand, and given the extent to which formulaicity abounds in discourse and interaction, on the other.
However, it is worth noting that Levinson’s (2000) move to shift the theorization of generalized conversational implicatures out of a strictly neo-Gricean account of speaker-intended meaning into a broader account of what is communicated through the proposal of hearer corollaries for the maxims has been the source of considerable subsequent debate (see Carston 2002). Indeed, there is a growing body of experimental work that attempts to examine the cognitive processes and mechanisms which underpin pragmatic meaning, including the question of whether default inferences are involved. As this is primarily a matter of how users understand meaning, however, we will return to discussing this line of experimental work.
الاكثر قراءة في pragmatics
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

الآخبار الصحية
