The Impact Of Pragmatic Considerations On Grammatical Formations “A Practical Study In Arabic And English”
Resumen
The connection between grammatical formations and pragmatics reflects the ability to understand another speaker’s implicit meaning in a mechanism that is called pragmatic competence. In this context, the study aims at defining this pragmatic competence. In addition, it aims at clarifying and analyzing the connection between pragmatic considerations and grammatical formations through discussion and investigating the pragmatic objectives of the grammar of both English and Arabic language in the selected phrases that represent this connection in English and Arabic.Citas
● Thomas, Jenny. “Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure,” 1983. Rpt. in World Englishes: Critical Concepts in Linguistics, Vol. 4, ed. by Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru. Routledge, 2006
● Balconi, M.; Amenta, S. “From Pragmatics to Neuroprag- matics.” Neuropsychology of Communication, Springer, 2010
● Cook, V.J.; M. Newson, M. “Chomsky’s Universal Gram- mar: An Introduction.” Wiley-Blackwell, 1996)
● Gazalah .H , (1995). Translation As Problems And Solu- tions: A Text Book For University Students And Trainee Translators Pp. 46.
● Carston, Robyn (2009) The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of communication. International Review of Pragmatics 1: 35−62.
● Carston, Robyn (2010) Explicit communication and ‘free’ pragmatic enrichment. In Belén Soria and Esther Romero (eds.) Explicit Communication. Essays on Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics 217−287. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
● Chomsky, Noam (1957) Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
● Chomsky, Noam (1977) Essays on Form and Interpretation. New York: North Holland.
● Chomsky, Noam (1981) Lectures on Government and Bind- ing. The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.
● Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press.
● Chomsky, Noam (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Na- ture, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.
● Coppok, Elizabeth and Wechsler, Stephen (2012) The ob- jective conjugation in Hungarian: Agreement without phi-features. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30: 699−740.
● Coppok, Elizabeth (2013) A semantic solution to the prob- lem of Hungarian object agreement. Natural Language Semantics 21: 345−371.
● Cornish, Francis (2005) Null complements, event structure, predication and anaphora: A functional discourse grammar account. J. Lachlan Mackenzie and M. A. Gómez-González (eds.) Studies in Functional Discourse Grammar 21−47. Bern: Peter Lang.
● Cote, Sharon A. (1996) Grammatical and Discourse Proper- ties of Null Arguments in English. PhD dissertation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
● Culicover, Peter W. and Jackendoff, Ray (2005) Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
● Jeddah,JED: Konooz AL-Marifa Company.
● Swain, M. (1984).Cross-cultural dialogues. Yarmouth, Maine: International Press
● Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: an introduction to pragmatics. Longman: London.
● Toury, G. (1995).Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam, Phiadelphia. John Benjamins
● Tunç,O. R. (1998). A critical re_evaluation of Gideon Toury’s target oriented approach to translation phenomena. Bogaziçi University.
● Unger, C. (2001). On the cognitive role of genre: a rele- vance-theoretic perspective. University of London: PhD Thesis, pp. 19-29
● Venuti, L. (2000). The translation studies reader. Routledge: New York
