The present article reports on a case study that focuses, comparatively, on the extent to which Romania’s Prime Minister Adrian Năstase and UK’s Prime Minister Tony Blair reveal their intentions and thoughts in their investment speeches, by the use of the personal pronouns I and we. The number of occurrences of each of the two first person pronouns and the way in which they are used will be considered in an analysis that is both quantitative and qualitative. The overall aim of the comparative approach is to highlight how democracy is seen in the cases scrutinized, based on the activation by the speakers of the principle of cooperation in oral communication.
The research is concerned with contrasting regularities vs. ambiguities in identity and quality face construction by Oscar winners in their acceptance speeches. The concept of “face” is viewed here from evaluative, socio-contextual, and interactive perspectives. The research focuses on determining the identity (social) and quality (personal) faces of the awardees as specified by the sets of the corresponding role invariants.
University Press: Cambridge, Harvard, 1989. 16. Hansen, H. Theories of Presumptions and Burdens of Proof. OSSA Conference Archive, 2003. 17. Kauffeld, F. J. Grice without the CooperativePrinciple. OSSA Conference Archive, 2001. 18. Kauffeld, F. J. The ordinary practice of presuming and presumption with special attention to veracity and the burden of proof. In. F. H. v. Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Williard, A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Anyone Who has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation, Kluwer Academic Publications: Dordrecht, 2003, pp.132
The subject of vagueness is discussed in analytical philosophy but from a linguistic point of view it is rather overlooked. We approached the issue of the concept definition and tried to find the cross point of two fields which is found in approach to vagueness using or violating of cooperative principle. The aim of the paper is to specify the criteria for the evaluation of vagueness, determine the motivation to use vagueness, defining its potential sources and describing the language means that typically make vagueness in persuasive texts specifically in politically oriented speeches. Based on the results of qualitative analysis, the occurrences of vagueness were found at lexical units’ level and semantic-pragmatic units. We have therefore focused on the linguistic manifestations of vagueness that is the appearance of evaluative adjectives, epistemic particles, metaphors, abstract word etc. Quantitative analysis of these linguistic categories has proven to be inadequate because not all of these occurrences can be labelled as vague. For this reason, we have been applied four types of vagueness based on violation of conversational maxima, which offers and partly clarifies conceptual difficulties and provide instructions for detecting vagueness in the text.
, since CooperativePrinciple appeared for the first time (Grice, 1975), it did not
get mass attention from researchers. However, it does not mean that this theory was completely
ignored. Hawley (2002), for example, clarifies the difference between what is saying and what
is implicating. He points out that saying has semantic implication, which means the meaning
of the utterance is closely related to the meaning of the words construct the sentence while
implicating has a pragmatic meaning, which means that the interpretation of the utterance is
beyond the meaning
Social Interaction . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56-289. Conti, D.J. and Camras, L.A., 1984. Children’s understanding of conversational principles. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology , vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 456-463. Dascal, M., 1999. La pragmática y las intenciones comunicativas. In: M. Dascal, ed. Filosofía del Lenguaje II. Pragmática . Madrid: Trotta, pp. 21-45. Davies, B.L., 2007. Grice’s cooperativeprinciple: meaning and rationality. Journal of Pragmatics , vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 2308-2331. Fernández-Urquiza, M., Díaz Martínez, F., Moreno
References Alba Juez, L. (1995).Verbal Irony and the Maxims of Grice's CooperativePrinciple. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses , 8 , 25–30. Akimoto, Y., & Miyazawa, S. (2017). Individual Differences in Irony Use Depend on Context. Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 36 (6), 675–693. Anolli, L., Ciceri, R., & Infantino, M. G. (2002). From” blame by praise” to” praise by blame”: Analysis of vocal patt erns in ironic communication. International Journal of Psychology , 37 (5), 266–276. Astington, J. W. (2003). Sometimes necessary, never
Wysocka, Maria. 1989. FL teachers vs. FL learners at the university level: A presentation of
student views. 22. 119–129.
Yagi, Sane M. & Shehdeh Fareh. 2004. Parallel conjunctive relations in EFL. 40. 257–268.
Yang, Yonglin. 1996. The cooperativeprinciple and the functional transition in English verbs. 30.
Yang, Yonglin. 1999. A functional-stratificational analysis of what-clauses for pedagogical
grammar. 34. 267–289.
Yusuf, Yisa Kehinde. 1997. “To propose is human”: Eliminating sexist language from English
proverbs. 32. 169–178.