Abstract

Deceptive Roles of Women in Arabic and English Literature Context: A Pragmatic Study

Abeer Mahdi Abd-Alsahab, Prof. Dr. Sarab Khalil

Volume: 12 Issue: 3 2022

Abstract:

Usually, feminine characters are assigned different roles and spaces for expressing the self and their cultural identity through literary text. Through searching and studying the literary text, deep-rooted beliefs of life can be uncovered that highlight similarities and differences between people who are divided by regional areas, languages, and many other factors. Pragmatic tools can perceive and conceptualise many human aspects that need scientific attention. One of these aspects is the phenomenon of deception and its intricate human nature. Deception is the goal, pragmatic strategies are the mean, and the identity of deceptive women is the target of this study. The question here is how deception is viewed in literary text and specifically how insincere women are introduced in Arabic and English social novels. Consequently, the current research takes the goal of identifying the types of deception in English and Arabic novels with a special focus on female characters. For this purpose, two prominent novels are chosen: "Palace of Desire" for Naguib Mahfouz (1957) and East of Eden for John Steinbeck (1952), since they are widely read novels and have gone repeatedly through the process of materialisation in the form of movies and series. In this respect, deception strategies are divided into super, deceptive, and sub-strategies. Super strategies come from strategic Manuvering principles, while the act of deception is the result of violating one or more of Gricean maxims. Sub- strategies, on the other hand, stand for various pragmatic strategies. The results indicate that deception types in both novels are the same but authors, out of their different cultural backgrounds, prioritise different deceptive strategies. The English novel has a higher percentage of falsification. Alternatively, the Arabic novel reveals a higher percentage of concealment. This point is additionally reflected in the existence of a psychopathic character (Cathy) in the English novel and the absence of such a venomous character in the Arabic novel.

DOI: http://doi.org/10.37648/ijrssh.v12i03.024

Back Download

References

• Abioye, T. (2011). 'Preference for Rhetorical Questions as an Index of Textual Message Effectiveness'. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 1 No. 11 (pp. 290-299).
• Archer, D., Aijmer, K., and Wichmann, A. (2012). Pragmatics: An Advanced Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
• Ariel, M. (2008). Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Attardo, S. (2001). Humor and Irony in Interaction: From Mode Adoption to Failure of Deletion. ISO Press, pp. 166-185.
• Arends, R. and Kilcher, A. (2010). Teaching for Student Learning: Becoming an Accomplished Teacher. Routledge. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data.
• Birner, B. J. (2013). Introduction to Pragmatics. Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Black, E. (2006). Pragmatic Stylistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Bok, S. (1978). Lying. Hassocks, UK: Harvester Press.
• Boone, L. E. & Kurtz, D. L. 1999. Contemporary marketing. Orlando: Dryden Press.
• Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bursten, B. (1973). The manipulator. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances. The pragmatics of explicit. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Charteris-Black, J. (2006a) Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Charteris-Black, J. (2006b) Britain as a container: Immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign. Discourse & Society, 17(6), 563-582.
• Chilton, P. (2005a) Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct. In: Wodak, R. & Chilton, P. (eds.) A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 19-51.
• Corbett, Edward P. J. (1990), Classical Rhetoric for the Modern, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Cruse, A. (2006). A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: EUP.
• Eemeren, F. H. van (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Evelyn, H. (1992). Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Fahmi, R.N. & Rustono. (2018). ' Types of Speech Acts in Indonesian Debate Argumentative Discourse'. Journal of Seloka: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia.Vol.7, pp.28-37. Available at: http://doi.org/10.15294/ seloka. v7il.22941
• Fraser, B. (2010). Hedging in Political Discourse. In Okulska and Cap (eds.) Perspectives in Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
• Galasinski, D. (2000). The Language of Deception: A Discourse Analytical Study. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Garssen, B (2010).' Introduction to the Special Issue: Twenty- Five Years of Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions'. Journal of Cogency.Vol.2, No.1, pp.13-21.
• Goffman, E., (1967). Interaction Ritual. Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Allen Lane: The Penguin Press.
• Goodin, R. E. (1980). Manipulatory politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
• Gupta, S., Sakamoto, K. and Ortony, A. (2013). 'Telling it Like it isn't: A Comprehensive Approach to Analyzing Verbal Deception'. In Paglieri, F., Tummolini, L., Falcone, R. and Miceli, M. (eds.), The goals of cognition. Essays in honor of Cristiano Castelfranchi, pp.1-39. London: College Publications.
• Harris, P. A. (2005). A Handbook of Rhetorical Devices. Retrieved from http://www.Virtuasalt.com/rhetoric.htm
• Hart, C. (2010) Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
• Horn, Laurence. (2005a). Current issues in neo-Gricean pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics 2 (2): 191– 204.
• Lauerbach, G., & Aijmer, K. (2007). Argumentation in dialogic media genres – Talk shows and interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1333-1341.
• Leech N. G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman Group Limited.
• Lindlof, T. R., and Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Lennon, P. (2004). Allusions in the Press: An Applied Linguistic Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Loberger, G. and Shoup, K. (2009). Webster's New World English Grammar Handbook. Canada: Wiley.
• McCornack, S. A. (1992). Information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs, 59, 1-16.
• McQuarrie, F. E. & Mick, D. (1996). Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language. The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22, No.4 (Mar., 1996), 424-438.
• Macagno, F. and Walton, D. (2014). Emotive Language in Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• McCornack, S. A. (2009). 'Information Manipulation Theory'. Communication Monographs, 59, 1-16.
• McGlone, M. (2007). 'What is the Explanatory Value of a Conceptual Metaphor'. In T. Taylor and J. Joseph (eds.) Language and Communication. New York: Elsevier
• Mills, S. (2011). 'Discursive Approaches to Politeness and Impoliteness'. In I. Kecskes (ed.) Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton
• Mirza, R.F. and Al-Hindawi, F.H. (2016). Strategic Maneuvering in American Civil and Criminal Courts Trials. Ph.D. thesis. The University of Babylon. Germany: LAP LAMBERT
• Oswald, S., Maillat, D. and Saussure, L. de. (2016). 'Deceptive and uncooperative verbal communication'. In Saussure, L. de and Rocci, A. (eds). Verbal communication (Handbooks of communicative science 3), pp. 509- 534. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
• Phillips, M. J. (2003). Understanding Visual Metaphor. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Polyzou, A. (2013) Presupposition, (ideological) knowledge management and gender: a socio-cognitive discourse analytical approach. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
• Puzynina, J. (1992). Jexyk w swiecie wartosci [Language in the world of values]. Warsaw, Poland: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
• Reah, D. (2002). The Language of Newspapers. London: Routledge.
• Richardson, J. E. (2007). Analysing Newspapers. An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Rudinow, J. (1978). Manipulation, Ethics, 88, 338-347.
• Saussure, L. de (2012) Cognitive Pragmatics Ways into Discourse Analysis: The Case of Discursive Presuppositions. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 8(1), 37–59.
• Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Shaffer, C. (2009). SAT: Subject Test Literature. 4th Edition. Barron's Educational Series, Inc. Library of Congress Catalogingin-Publication Data.
• Sip, K., Roepstorff, A., McGregor, W., & Frith, C. (2008). Detecting deception: the scope and limits. Trends In Cognitive Sciences, 12(2), 48-53. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.11.008.
• Sofaer, S. (1999). Qualitative methods: What are they and why use them? Health Services Research, 34(5 Pt 2), 1101.
• Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
• van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• van Eemeren, F. H. (2018). Argumentation theory: A Pragma-dialectical perspective. Switzerland: Springer.
• van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2009). Analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse. In J. Renkema (Ed.), Discourse, of course: An overview of research in discourse studies (pp. 171-184). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1983). Unexpressed premisses: part II. The Journal of the American Forensic Association, 19(4), 215-225.
• van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discourse: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussion directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: De Gruyter.
• van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2000). Rhetorical analysis within a pragmadialectical framework: The case of RJ Reynolds. Argumentation, 14(3), 293- 305.
• van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131-159). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
• van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2003). The development of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. Argumentation, 17(4), 387-403.
• van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2009a). Seizing the occasion: Parameters for analysing ways of strategic maneuvering. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. J. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation: Twenty essays on theoretical issues (pp. 3-14). Dordrecht: Springer.
• van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2009b). Strategic maneuvering: Examining argumentation in context. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 1-24). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A syntactic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Eemeren, F. H. van, and Houtlosser, P (2007) strategic manoeuvring: a synthetic recapitulation Springer Argumentation (2006) 20:381–392
• van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2008). Dialectical profiles and indicators of argumentative moves. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 475-493.
• Vrij, A. (2004) Guidelines to catch a liar. In The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts (Granhag, P.-A. and Stromwall, L., eds), pp. 287– 314, Cambridge University Press.