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
Metapragmatics in use
المؤلف:
Jonathan Culpeper and Michael Haugh
المصدر:
Pragmatics and the English Language
الجزء والصفحة:
258-8
31-5-2022
1133
Metapragmatics in use
Metapragmatic awareness lies at the core of a number of important pragmatic phenomena. In many instances, this reflexive awareness is not always accessible or highly salient to participants. It may be inherent to their use of language, but it is not necessarily something they can articulate. There are, however, cases where metapragmatic awareness itself may become highly salient in discourse. The most obvious example of this is the use of metapragmatic commentary to “influence and negotiate how an utterance is or should have been heard, or [to] try to modify the values attributed to it” (Jaworskiń et al. 2004: 4); in other words, the strategic deployment of comments about language use in order to (re)negotiate interpretations of pragmatic meanings, pragmatic acts, and interpersonal relations, attitudes and evaluations. Hübler and Bublitz (2007) term such phenomena “metapragmatics in use”. They list some of the functions of metapragmatic commentary, including:
Given this list is not by any means exhaustive, it is clear that metapragmatic commentary (or, more broadly, acts) can be used to accomplish all sorts of different pragmatic work.
In a study of metapragmatic utterances that arise in computer-mediated interactions in a number of different mailing lists, for instance, Tanskanen (2007) illustrates how participants can use metapragmatic utterances to accomplish assessments of the degree of appropriateness of either their own or others’ posts, or to clarify their own contributions where some misunderstanding is perceived. Such comments were thus found to be designed to (1) accomplish judgements of appropriateness (see example [8.15]), (2) control and plan subsequent interaction (example [8.16]), or (3) give feedback on ongoing interaction (example [8.17]):
Such metapragmatic comments thus illustrate how users display reflexive awareness in making posts to such lists, as through them we can see how they “adopt the perspective of their fellow communicators” in “anticipating potential problems” in such forums (Tanskanen 2007: 88). More generally, we can observe how metapragmatic comments are designed to avoid both misinterpretation and unwanted relational or attitudinal implications, by other participants.
In some cases, however, metapragmatic comments are deployed in order to negotiate or even dispute particular pragmatic meanings, pragmatic acts, interpersonal relations and attitudes, and so on. Consider the following extract from a documentary where four Indians have been touring to get a first-hand understanding of race relations. Preceding this particular excerpt, Gurmeet has suggested to an Aboriginal elder that indigenous Australians should have “specific educational institutions for Aboriginals”, to which the elder responds that such institutions already exist. The excerpt itself begins when Gurmeet subsequently asks why the elder has “complaints” about the past and current situation of indigenous Australians:
While the elder’s initial response in line 15 is indicative not only of possible forthcoming disagreement with what is supposed through Gurmeet’s question (i.e. that the elder has been complaining), but also that there is some issue in regards to the propriety of Gurmeet’s question. Gurmeet nevertheless repeats essentially the same question in line 16. This time the elder’s offence at the terms of the question becomes more evident in her rising pitch, stepping backwards and formulation of a “rhetorical question” in line 17. She then attempts to reformulate her prior turns as simply answering questions rather than complaining (lines 20–21), and then finally makes explicit what appears to be the source of the offence she is taking at Gurmeet’s line of questioning, namely, his implicit assumption that he has the right to judge the situation of “her” country (lines 24–27).3
We can observe a number of metapragmatic comments in the above extract, which are indicated by the arrows, in relation to the construal of pragmatic acts (lines 17, 20–21), pragmatic meaning and accountability (line 22), and relational entitlements (lines 23–27). In lines 17 and 20–21, the elder disputes the way in which Gurmeet has framed her prior talk as complaining, and offers an alternative formulation of her actions as simply answering questions. In this case, it is the way in which her prior talk is being construed as a particular pragmatic act, namely “complaining”, that is at issue. Studies of complaints in English have shown that complaining is regarded as an inherently moral act, and thus to characterize some talk as “complaining”, involves the question of whether there are sufficient grounds for launching the complaint, and thus whether the person complaining has the right to make such a complaint (see Drew 1998). Such research has also shown that participants will often engage in considerable interactional work to avoid what they are meaning being construed as complaining (Edwards 2005).
In line 22, Gurmeet moves to hold the elder accountable for complaining rather than answering questions by invoking the sense of saying as meaning something In other words, Gurmeet construes the elder as previously implying that the situation of indigenous Australians has not been very good because of the actions of others (in particular, the Australian government). He thus attempts to hold her accountable for this particular reflexively intended assumption.
Finally, in lines 23–27, we can see the elder disputing Gurmeet’s right to evaluate and comment on the situation of indigenous Australians by construing herself as an “insider” and Gurmeet as an “outsider” to “Kamilaroi country” (where the Indians are currently visiting). In other words, she is explicitly referring to her entitlement to comment on the circumstances of “her people”, as opposed to the lack of such an entitlement on Gurmeet’s part, thereby alluding to issues of interpersonal relations and their respective “sociality rights”. It is also evident throughout that the elder is treating Gurmeet’s line of questioning as “inapposite”, if not outright offensive, thereby indicating an implicit orientation to a particular interpersonal attitude on the part of Gurmeet, namely, that he is being “impolite” or “offensive”.
In order to understand the above excerpt, however, it is evident that we also need to have a clear understanding of what these participants mean by such terms as complaint/complaining, asking questions, saying, and impolite/ offensive, as well as what these words mean for English speakers more generally, given the interaction was broadcast on television to an “overhearing” audience. Thus, while “technical” meanings can be ascribed to such terms, it is important to remember that this metalanguage means something to ordinary participants too.
الاكثر قراءة في pragmatics
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

الآخبار الصحية
