

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: What counts as an apology?
المؤلف:
Jonathan Culpeper and Michael Haugh
المصدر:
Pragmatics and the English Language
الجزء والصفحة:
178-6
17-5-2022
924
Reflection: What counts as an apology?
The performance of public apologies, even within nation states, is often more complex than at first appearance, due to the different understandings and footings of recipients. In early 2008, then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered a formal apology in the Australian parliament to the “Stolen Generations”, indigenous Aboriginal and Torres Straits Australians who were forcibly taken from their homes as children and forced to assimilate with white Australian families over a period of 100 years from 1869–1969. The core of the “sorry speech” was the issuing of apologies for three offences:

This apology was received by many Australians as genuine and sincere as it conformed to both “everyday and formal understandings of the necessary linguistic features of a legitimate apology” (Augustinos et al. 2011: 527), at least in English, we might add. However, the reaction amongst indigenous Australians was more mixed. On the one hand, the address was treated as an appropriate and sufficient apology by some, as illustrated by the following reaction from a member of the Stolen Generations, Uncle Albert Holt:

On the other hand, other (indigenous) Australians regarded it is as less than an apology. They focused on two points. The first is the way in which it has been (mis)perceived by white Australians.

The point argued here by Foley is that, while the apology was perceived by most Australians as an apology to all indigenous Australians, it was in fact only an apology for what happened to the Stolen Generations. Such activists contend that a real apology should address all injustices against all indigenous Australians. The second point of contention is that an apology must be accompanied by meaningful compensation or reparations to count as real or sufficient:

The “sorry speech” was thus perceived, by some at least, as reflecting the “discourse of minimizing responsibility” that Kampf (2009) argues is characteristic of public, political apologies.
Differences in the performance and understanding of speech acts can be divided into two main types following the pragmalinguistic-sociopragmatic distinction that was initially made by Thomas (1983; see also Leech 1983). The pragmalinguistic aspect of speech acts refers to the linguistic forms and strategies (more generally “resources”) that are utilized in their performance. The sociopragmatic aspect of speech acts, in contrast, refers to the social values and perceptions that underlie their performance and interpretation. The cross-cultural differences in apologies in English and Japanese we have just discussed are largely sociopragmatic in nature. However, in comparing speech acts across cultures, we often find that differences are both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic in origin. For example, a review of the literature indicates that while Chinese and English speakers draw from a largely similar range of pragmalinguistic resources in performing apologies (e.g. explanations for the offence, acknowledgements of responsibility and offers of redress), one resource used much more commonly by Chinese compared to English speakers is the repetition of apology IFIDs (e.g. duìbùqĭ or bùhăoyìsu) (Chang and Haugh 2011). This pragmalinguistic difference can be traced to a key sociopragmatic difference underlying apologies in English and Chinese, namely, the way in which “sincerity” (or what is termed chéngyì in Chinese) is conceptualized. In Chinese, chéngyì in relation to apologies is realized through repetition of an apology IFID several times to “show what s/he intends to do is genuine” while also giving the recipient the opportunity to confirm the speaker’s “genuine intention” (Hua et al. 2000: 99). This pragmalinguistic resource, while available to English speakers, is not as commonly employed due to the different sociopragmatic value placed on repetition of speech acts (particularly IFIDs).
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)