kaka Amin, Rebin Nooraldeen (2023) Analysis of Cost/Benefit, Optionality and Indirectness Scales in Selected English Interviews. Masters thesis, Koya University.
![[img]](http://eprints.koyauniversity.org/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text (MA Thesis)
MA_DENG_2023.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (2MB) |
Abstract
The present study offers an analysis of Leech’s (1983) three pragmatic scales, viz. cost-benefit, optionality, and indirectness in English interviews. The current study aims at analysing both the politeness maxims and scales in English interviews from different comedys to demonstrate the relations between the maxims and scales. It also aims at exploring which politeness maxims and scales take the lion’s share in English interviews. The present study seeks to answer these questions: Are there any relations between the pragmatic scales and politeness maxims? Which pragmatic scales and politeness maxims used most frequently in English interviews? Is only one pragmatic scale enough to realise the degree of politeness? Therefore, in accordance with the research questions, it is hypothesised that there is a complementary relationship between the scales and maxims; the maxims operate in the scales. The cost-benefit scale and tact maxim are the most dominant pragmatic scales and politeness maxims in English interviews. To verify the hypotheses and analyse the selected data, a broad-based model is adopted. Twelve interviews from six different genres were selected as data samples for analysis. Notably, mixed method methods are employed in this study. The study concludes that there is a complementary relationship between pragmatic scales and politeness maxims. Politeness maxims operate within the pragmatic scale. In addition, the cost-benefit scale is found to be a dominant and widely employed pragmatic scale in English interviews. Similarly, approbation and tact maxims are the most commonly used politeness maxims in English interviews in the current study; one pragmatic scale would not be enough to realise the degree of politeness in English interviews when more than one scale is employed in an utterance.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Masters) |
|---|---|
| Additional Information: | Brown, P., & Levinson, S.,1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S.,1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C., 1999. Politeness. Some universals in language usage. I: The discourse reader. Ed. by Adam Jaworski & Nikolas Coupland. London–New York. S, pp.321-335. Creswell, J.W., 2013. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th Edition, SAGE Publications, Inc., London. Cutting, J., 2002. Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students. Routledge. Denscombe, M., 2007. The good research guide. Berkshire. McGraw-Hill Education. Dynel, M., 2009. Humorous garden-paths: A pragmatic-cognitive study. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Eelen, G., 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Fasold, R.W., 1990. Introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Flowerdew, J., 2012. Discourse in English language education. Routledge. Fraser, B., 1990. Perspectives on politeness. Journal of pragmatics, 14(2), pp.219-236. Fraser, B., 2010. Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. New approaches to hedging, 1534. Goffman, E., 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company. Green, G.M., 1996. Pragmatics and natural language understanding. Psychology Press. Grice, P., 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press. Gu, Y., 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of pragmatics, 14(2), pp.237-257. Holmes, J., 1992. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. 3rd edn. Harlow. Ide, S., 1989. Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua. Kádár, D.Z. and Haugh, M., 2013. Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. K., H.M.A. (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Kasper, G., 1990. Linguistic politeness:: Current research issues. Journal of pragmatics, 14(2), pp.193-218. Kennedy, G., 2007. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civk Discourse. Oxford: OUP. Koutlaki, S.A., 2002. Offers and expressions of thanks as face enhancing acts: tae'arof in Persian. Journal of pragmatics, 34(12), pp.1733-1756. Leech, G.N., 2016. Principles of pragmatics. Routledge. Leech, G., 1983. Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman. Levinson, S. C., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Locher, M.A. and Watts, R.J., 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. De Gruyter Mouton. Locher, M.A., 2006. Polite behavior within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness. Matsumoto, Y., 1988. Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of pragmatics, 12(4), pp.403-426. Mao, L.R., 1994. Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of pragmatics, 21(5), pp.451-486. Meyer, C.F., 2009. Introducing english linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mey, J.,1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Mills, S., 2003. Gender and politeness (No. 17). Cambridge University Press. Morris, C.W., 1938. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. In International encyclopedia of unified science (pp. 1-59). Chicago University Press. Nwoye, O.G., 1992. Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of pragmatics, 18(4), pp.309-328. Pikor-Niedziałek, M., 2005. A critical overview of politeness theories in discourse analysis. Studia Anglica Resoviensia 3: 105-113. Rahardi, R.K., 2005. Pragmatik: kesantunan imperatif bahasa Indonesia. Erlangga. Sharyan, A., 2003. Najuib Mahfouz’s The Thief and the Dogs: A Pragmalinguistic Analysis. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Vol.19 No.2. San’a University. Slobin, D.I., 1975. The more it changes… on understanding language by watching it move through time. Papers and reports on child language development, 10, pp.1-30. Spencer-Oatey, H., 1997. Unequal relationships in high and low power distance societies: A comparative study of ibtor-student role relations in Britain and China. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 28(3), pp.284-302. Stadler, S., 2012. Cross‐cultural pragmatics. The Encyclopedia of applied linguistics, pp.1-8. Thomas, J., 1995. Meaning in interaction. An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman. Turner, K., 1996. The principal principles of pragmatic inference: politeness. Language Teaching, 29(1), pp.1-13. Verschueren, J. and Östman, J.O. eds., 2009. Key notions for pragmatics (Vol. 1). John Benjamins Publishing. Walton, D., 2004. Informal Logic. Cambridge: CUP. Watts, R., 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Werkhofer, K.T., 1992. Traditional and modern views: the social constitution and the power of politeness. Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice, pp.155-197. Yule, G., 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: O.U.P. Yule, G., 2006. The Study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| Subjects: | P Language and Literature > P Philology. Linguistics P Language and Literature > PE English |
| Divisions: | Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences > Department of English Language > M.Sc. Thesis |
| Depositing User: | Mr. Rebwar Mohammed Jarjis |
| Date Deposited: | 16 Nov 2023 08:53 |
| Last Modified: | 16 Nov 2023 08:53 |
| URI: | http://eprints.koyauniversity.org/id/eprint/432 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
