بناس على طلب eamy angel....... Pragmatics

What is pragmatics?

“We human beings are odd compared with our nearest animal relatives. Unlike them, we can say what we want, when we want. All normal humans can produce and understand any number of new words and sentences. Humans use the multiple options of language often without thinking. But blindly, they sometimes fall into its traps. They are like spiders who exploit their webs, but themselves get caught in the sticky strands.”

“Pragmatics studies the factors that govern our choice of language in social interaction and the effects of our choice on others.”

“Pragmatics is all about the meanings between the lexis and the grammar and the phonology...Meanings are implied and the rules being followed are unspoken, unwritten ones.”

“Pragmatics is a way of investigating how sense can be made of certain texts even when, from a semantic viewpoint, the text seems to be either incomplete or to have a different meaning to what is really intended. Consider a sign seen in a children's wear shop window: “Baby Sale - lots of bargains”. We know without asking that there are no babies are for sale - that what is for sale are items used for babies. Pragmatics allows us to investigate how this “meaning beyond the words” can be understood without ambiguity. The extra meaning is there, not because of the semantic aspects of the words themselves, but because we share certain contextual knowledge with the writer or speaker of the text.

“Pragmatics is an important area of study for your course. A simplified way of thinking about pragmatics is to recognise, for example, that language needs to be kept interesting - a speaker or writer does not want to bore a listener or reader, for example, by being over-long or tedious. So, humans strive to find linguistic means to make a text, perhaps, shorter, more interesting, more relevant, more purposeful or more personal. Pragmatics allows this. ”

Pragmatics is a systematic way of explaining language use in context. It seeks to explain aspects of meaning which cannot be found in the plain sense of words or structures, as explained by semantics. As a field of language study, pragmatics is fairly new. Its origins lie in philosophy of language and the American philosophical school of pragmatism. As a discipline within language science, its roots lie in the work of (Herbert) Paul Grice on conversational implicature and the cooperative principle, and on the work of Stephen Levinson, Penelope Brown and Geoff Leech on politeness.

We can illustrate how pragmatics works by an example from association football (and other field sports). It sometimes happens that a team-mate will shout at me: “Man on!” Semantic analysis can only go so far with this phrase.

* For example, it can elicit different lexical meanings of the noun “man” (mankind or the human race, an individual person, a male person specifically) and the preposition “on” (on top of, above, or other relationships as in “on fire”, “on heat”, “on duty”, “on the fiddle” or “on the telly”).
* And it can also explain structural meaning, and account for the way this phrase works in longer sequences such as the “first man on the moon”, “a man on the run” or “the man on top of the Clapham omnibus”.

والبقية تأتى ان شاء الله
وبالتوفيق للجميع

سورى يا جماعة
كان قصدى يكون اسم التوبيك
بناء على طلب eamy angel

What does pragmatics include?

The lack of a clear consensus appears in the way that no two published accounts list the same categories of pragmatics in quite the same order. But among the things you should know about are:

* Speech act theory
* Felicity conditions
* Conversational implicature
* The cooperative principle
* Conversational maxims
* Relevance
* Politeness
* Phatic tokens
* Deixis

This guide contains some explanation of all of these, as well as related or peripheral subjects. Many of them break down further into their own sub-categories, as with the different kinds of speech acts that linguists have usefully distinguished.

Criticisms of pragmatics

Some of the criticisms directed at pragmatics include these:

* It does not have a clear-cut focus
* Its principles are vague and fuzzy
* It is redundant - semantics already covers the territory adequately

In defending pragmatics we can say that:

* The study of speech acts has illuminated social language interactions
* It covers things that semantics (hitherto) has overlooked
* It can help inform strategies for teaching language
* It has given new insights into understanding literature
* The theories of the cooperative principle and politeness principle have provided insights into person-to-person interactions.

Speech acts

Performatives | The “hereby” test | Felicity conditions

The philosopher J.L. Austin (1911-1960) claims that many utterances (things people say) are equivalent to actions. When someone says: “I name this ship” or “I now pronounce you man and wife”, the utterance creates a new social or psychological reality. We can add many more examples:

* Sergeant Major: Squad, by the left… left turn!
* Referee: (Pointing to the centre circle) Goal!
* Groom: With this ring, I thee wed.

Speech act theory broadly explains these utterances as having three parts or aspects: locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts.

* Locutionary acts are simply the speech acts that have taken place.
* Illocutionary acts are the real actions which are performed by the utterance, where saying equals doing, as in betting, plighting one's troth, welcoming and warning.
* Perlocutionary acts are the effects of the utterance on the listener, who accepts the bet or pledge of marriage, is welcomed or warned.

Some linguists have attempted to classify illocutionary acts into a number of categories or types. David Crystal, quoting J.R. Searle, gives five such categories: representatives, directives, commissives, expressives and declarations. (Perhaps he would have preferred declaratives, but this term was already taken as a description of a kind of sentence that expresses a statement.)

* Representatives: here the speaker asserts a proposition to be true, using such verbs as: affirm, believe, conclude, deny, report.
* Directives: here the speaker tries to make the hearer do something, with such words as: ask, beg, challenge, command, dare, invite, insist, request.
* Commissives: here the speaker commits himself (or herself) to a (future) course of action, with verbs such as: guarantee, pledge, promise, swear, vow, undertake, warrant.
* Expressives: the speaker expresses an attitude to or about a state of affairs, using such verbs as: apologize, appreciate, congratulate, deplore, detest, regret, thank, welcome.
* Declarations the speaker alters the external status or condition of an object or situation, solely by making the utterance: I now pronounce you man and wife, I sentence you to be hanged by the neck until you be dead, I name this ship...

Conversational maxims and the cooperative principle

The success of a conversation depends upon the various speakers' approach to the interaction. The way in which people try to make conversations work is sometimes called the cooperative principle. We can understand it partly by noting those people who are exceptions to the rule, and are not capable of making the conversation work. We may also, sometimes, find it useful deliberately to infringe or disregard it - as when we receive an unwelcome call from a telephone salesperson, or where we are being interviewed by a police officer on suspicion of some terrible crime.

Paul Grice proposes that in ordinary conversation, speakers and hearers share a cooperative principle. Speakers shape their utterances to be understood by hearers. The principle can be explained by four underlying rules or maxims. (David Crystal calls them conversational maxims. They are also sometimes named Grice's or Gricean maxims.)

They are the maxims of quality, quantity, relevance and manner.

* Quality: speakers should be truthful. They should not say what they think is false, or make statements for which they have no evidence.
* Quantity: a contribution should be as informative as is required for the conversation to proceed. It should be neither too little, nor too much. (It is not clear how one can decide what quantity of information satisfies the maxim in a given case.)
* Relevance: speakers' contributions should relate clearly to the purpose of the exchange.
* Manner: speakers' contributions should be perspicuous: clear, orderly and brief, avoiding obscurity and ambiguity.

Grice does not of course prescribe the use of such maxims. Nor does he (I hope) suggest that we use them artificially to construct conversations. But they are useful for analysing and interpreting conversation, and may reveal purposes of which (either as speaker or listener) we were not previously aware. Very often, we communicate particular non-literal meanings by appearing to “violate” or “flout” these maxims. If you were to hear someone described as having “one good eye”, you might well assume the person's other eye was defective, even though nothing had been said about it at all

.

شالله يخليك يا رب ويعمر بيتك قادر يا كريم

ويبعد عنك بلاوي الدكاترة ورخامتهم

ويرزقك يا اسلاااام يا ابن عمو وطنط بسنجلاية حلوة كدة

:l,/l:
قول امييييييييييييييييييييييين

هههههههههههههه
لا فكك من السنجلاية
اهم حاجة بس ناخد الشهادة الاول وننجح السنة اللى مش باينلها اول من اخر دى وبعد كده نبقى ندور على السنجلاية او حتى تكون فرويد
ههههههههههههههه

يا عم قول يا رب cheers

لحسن دة انا مش مطمنة السنة دي خالص
احسااسي بيقولي حاجات وحشة

لا فكك من احساسك
وامشى بعقلك واتعاملى بطريقة واقعية هتلاقى نفسك بتذاكرى كويس وهتجيبى تقدير زى الفل ان شاء الله

تحياتى وتقديرى

وحشتيني اوي ياemy angil عاملة اية وازيك يا i'm singl

وانتي كمان وحشاني يا قمر

الحمدلله ازيك انتى ESSOO
ويا رب تستفيدى بما انى شايف فى ملفك انك قسم انجلش

تحياتى وتقديرى