A Pragmatic Study of English Honorific Forms
الكلمات المفتاحية:
Honorifics ,politeness , Shaw's playالملخص
It is axiomatic that languages mirror the world view of their users. Manipulating honorific forms among people inevitably reflects this truth . Honorifics are conventionalized forms or expressions manifested in all the world's languages and are used to express the social status of the participants in the verbal interaction and to convey indications like politeness and respect . English is no exception. However the question is what exactly creates these forms and their meanings. Although honorifics have been extensively researched from a grammatical and semantic angle , yet they haven’t received that significant attention in pragmatic research, especially their use in literary works .Thus, this qualitative paper aims at clarifying the main linguistic devices that represent English honorific forms and investigating the main functions and the pragmatic meanings that these forms can express. Based on eight extracts taken from George Bernard Shaw's play "Caesar and Cleopatra , the present study examines the use of honorific forms with much focus on the pragmatic strategies deployed in creating their meaning . The findings of the study reveals that context is the most important and effective factor in creating, using, and interpreting honorifics.
المراجع
2. Agha, A. (1994). "Honorification". Annual Review of Anthropology (23), 277– 302.
3. ----------- (1998). "Stereotypes and Registers of Honorific Language". Language in Society27,(2), 151-193.
4. -------------(2007). Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Bell ,R5,(1978) Sociolinguistics, Goals,Approaches and Problems. London: Billing and Sons Ltd.
6. Brown, L. (2011). Korean Honorifics and Politeness in Second Language Learning. North America: John Benjamins B.V.
7. Brown, P., and Levinson, S. (1978). "Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena". In E. N. Goody (eds), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. ----------------------------------- (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Bussmann, H. (1996). Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Routlege: British Library.
10. Chapman, S. (2011). Pragmatics. London :Palgrave Macmilan
11. Cook, G. (1999). Discourse and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.. .
12. Crystal,D.(2003) A Dictionary of Semantics and Pragmatics .Edinburgh :Edinburgh University Press.
13. Fetzer,A. (2010)" Contexts in context; micro meets macro" In Tanskanen ,S. Hhelasvou,M.Johassson,M. and Raitaniema,M.(eds.) Discourse in Interaction.London:Benjamins Publishing Company,13-32.
14. Finch, G (2000) Linguistics.London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
15. Gazdar,G. (1979 ) Pragmatics Implicature , Presupposition and Logical Form .New York : Free Press
16. Gramley, S. and Patzold, K. (1992). A Survey of Modern English. England: Clays Ltd.
17. Grice,H.P. (1975)"Logic and conversation",In Cole,P.and Morgan,J (eds.)Syntax and Semantics .Vol 3.New York:Academic Press:41-58
18. Grundy, P. (2000). Doing Pragmatics.London : Routledge ,Taylor and Francis Group
19. Hasegawn,H.(2006)" Embedded Soliloquy and effective stances in Japanese"In S.Suzuki,(eds )Emotive Communication in Japanese.Amesterdam:JOHN Benjamins Publishing Company.
20. Hijirada, K. and Sohn, H. (1986). “Cross-Cultural Patterns of Honorifics and Sociolinguistic Sensitivity to Honorific Variables: Evidence from English, Japanese and Korean”. Papers in Linguistics. 19(3).365-401
21. Horn, L.R.. and Word, G. (2006).The Handbook of Pragmatics.New Jersy : Wiley-Blackwell publishing Ltd.
22. Huang ,Y.(2007) Pragmatics. Oxford : Oxford University Press
23. Hymes,D. (1974) Foundations in Sociolinguistics : An Ethnographic Approach.Oxon: Tavistock Publishing Ltd.
24. Ide, S. and Lakoff, R. (2005) Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. North America: John Benjamins B.V.
25. Kadar, D. and Mills, S. (2011). Politeness in East Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Keating, E. (1998). Power Sharing: Language, Gender, and Social space in Pohnpei Micronesia. New York : Oxford University Press.
27. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.
28. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman
29. Levinson, S. C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Malinowski,B. (1923) The problem of meaning in primitive languages In C.N. Ogden and I.A. Richards (eds.) The Meaning of Meaning.London:Kegan Paul296-336
31. .Reiter, R. (2000). Linguistic Poilteness in Britain and Auruguay: A Contrastive Study of Requests and Apologies. Amesterdam:John Benjamins Publishing. Company
32. Searle’J.R. (1979) Expressions and Meaning:Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts .Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
33. . Shaw,G B.(2011) Caesar and Cleopatra.London: The Floating Press.
34. Shibatani, M. (1999). "Honorifics." In Brown,K. and Miller, J.(eds.) Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. 192-201
35. Sifianou, M. (1992). Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A Cross-Cultural Perspective .Oxford: Clarendon Press.
36. Stranzy, P ( 2005) Encyclopedia of Linguistics Vol.1 New York:Oxon
37. Verschueren, Jef. (1992). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.
38. Vetter, H.J. (1971) Language Behavior and Communication: An Introduction. Itasca :Peacock Publishers
39. . Walker, T. (2007). Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues. Amesterdam:John Benjamins Publishing. Company
40. Wardhaugh, R. (1986). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
41. Watts, R.J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
42. Yule, G. (1996) Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
