RESEARCH PROJECT

| October 25, 2015

make sure to follow the criteria exactly
Decide on an area of pragmatics that you would like to focus your research question.
Suggested theoretical areas are:
Im/politeness, Implicature and/or relevance theory, Discourse pragmatics, Metaphor, Critical discourse analysis
This assignment will involve a small research project based on a defined pragmatics topic, involving the analysis of selected linguistic data. Please choose one of the following two options: ( Choose the first option)

1. Perform a pragmatic investigation involving an encounter between two or more interactants which is in some way interesting or problematic. Cross-cultural interactions are a particularly rich source. If you choose spoken data, it may be from a film; TV broadcast; radio or television broadcast; or other suitable public source. You will need to supply an appropriate transcript of relevant passages, showing the features which are relevant to your investigation. If you choose written data, it must consist of texts which are available in the public domain. This assignment will allow you to demonstrate your understanding of how pragmatics can be applied to explain linguistic/comprehension difficulties arising in situations of cross-cultural communication. (please attach the selected data to me )
OR
(2. A pragmatic investigation on a topic of your choice involving the collection of data. This may involve completion of a human ethics application which must be lodged as early as possible – so if you are interested in exploring this option you must have discussed your project and had it approved by the course convenor before the mid semester break. Note that the ethics approval procedure can lead to delays, so you should only choose this option if you are sure you will be available to complete the project in the latter half of November if an extension is required.)

For each of these options, the type of pragmatic analysis you undertake will naturally depend on the nature of the discourse itself – not all aspects discussed in the unit may appear in or be relevant to your discourse sample and context. Do not attempt to cover all aspects dealt with in this unit! Keep your investigation focused and narrow in scope for this small study.
The general approach, format, style, mode of presentation, type of analysis, discussion and argument should aim to resemble the genre of the scholarly research paper found in professional refereed journals.
If in your exposition you refer to and discuss a piece of textual evidence (e.g., an exchange in an interaction), this excerpt should be shown in the main body of your text as well as being included in the longer transcript in an appendix. If you are quoting longer passages, it is recommended that you number each line in the transcript.

The word limit for this assignment (4000 words) does not include displayed data, any appendices and references.
The assignment will be assessed in relation to the following criteria You should:
• Identify the issue you are dealing with and the system of analysis you will use.
• Undertake a brief literature review identifying and evaluating recent relevant work.
• demonstrate an understanding of relevant pragmatic concepts;
• apply these concepts appropriately to your chosen issue and context;
• evaluate your conclusions in the light of the scope of your project:
• write clearly and concisely in academic style;
• provide a reference list citing all and only those references cited in the body of your essay;
• use APA referencing style;
• provide a suitable transcript of your data
• Observe the word limits.

Your grade will be mostly determined by:
• the relevance and critical nature of your literature review
• the quality of your analysis
• how well your discussion of the data is related to the theory.
This is the link of my course (textbook) http://www.doc88.com/p-8498776082418.html)

• (Speech Act Theory)
• From the textbook: Unit A4 p 35-46.
Unit B4 ( pp 170 -178).
Jucker AH (2009) Speech act research between armchair, field and laboratory: The case of compliments. Journal of Pragmatics 41 8 pp 1611-1635
Searle, J. R. 1969. ‘The Structure of Illocutionary Acts’, in Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

*( implicature and the co-operative theory).From the textbook, Archer et al 2012 : Unit A5- section 1-4
*Thomas, J 1995 Meaning in Interaction – an introduction to pragmatics
Chapter 3 (pp 55 – 86) {download from e-reserve}
Grice, P. (1975) ‘Logic and conversation’, in Davidson, D. and G. Harman (eds.) The logic of grammar. Encino, California: Dickinson. {download from e-reserve}
Keenan, E. (1976) ‘The universality of conversational postulates’ in Language in society 5 (67-80) {download from e-reserve}
Sarangi and Slembrouck (1992) Non-co-operation in communication A reassessment of Gricean pragmatics. Journal of pragmatics 17 117-154
{download from the journal, using the library catalogue.}
Bouton L.F 1994 Conversational implicature in a second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 2, pp 157-167 {download from the journal, using the library catalogue.}

*Archer et al 2012 Section A2 ” Research methods in pragmatics”
*Schauer G A. and Adolphs S (2006) Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy System34 119–134 (download from the library catalogue)
(Prosody and communication)
Nelson, G., Al Batal, M., & Echols, E. (1996). Arabic and English compliment responses: Potential for pragmatic failure.
*Archer et al (2012) Unit A10 Cross cultural pragmatics pp 110-118
Wierzbicka, A. 2003. Cross-cultural Pragmatics. The semantics of human interaction. (2nd edition). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Chapter 2 Different cultures, different languages different speech acts, pp 25-65 (download from e-reserve – note that this chapter is split into 2 parts )
Wong J. O Cultural scripts. ways of speaking and perceptions of personal autonomy: Anglo English vs SIngapore English Intercultural Pragmatics 1 2 pp231–248
Now, look at the CARLA website and read about the studies that have been done on refusals in American English, Arabic, British English, Chinese, German, Japanese and Spanish.
http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/descriptions.html

*From the textbook, Archer et al 2012 : Unit A5- section 1-4
*Thomas, J 1995 Meaning in Interaction – an introduction to pragmatics
Chapter 3 (pp 55 – 86) {download from e-reserve}
Grice, P. (1975) ‘Logic and conversation’, in Davidson, D. and G. Harman (eds.) The logic of grammar. Encino, California: Dickinson. {download from e-reserve}
Keenan, E. (1976) ‘The universality of conversational postulates’ in Language in society 5 (67-80) {download from e-reserve}
Sarangi and Slembrouck (1992) Non-co-operation in communication A reassessment of Gricean pragmatics. Journal of pragmatics 17 117-154
{download from the journal, using the library catalogue.}
Bouton L.F 1994 Conversational implicature in a second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 2, pp 157-167 {download from the journal, using the library catalogue.}

Please notice using the above readings and be sure to use the sources in the body and the referencing.

Get a 5 % discount on an order above $ 150
Use the following coupon code :
2020Discount
unification of germany
kingsmerit

Category: sample papers

Our Services:
Order a customized paper today!
Open chat
Hello, we are here to help with your assignments
Powered by