A Pragmatic Analysis of Criticizing in The Guardian’s Opinion Column

Simple item page
dc.creatorProf. Dr. Salih Mahdi Adai Al-Mamoory
dc.creatorAssist. Instructor Kadhim Ketab Rhaif
dc.date2023-04-27
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-21T07:25:35Z
dc.date.available2023-08-21T07:25:35Z
dc.descriptionThis study examines the criticizing strategies used in the opinion section of the Guardian, specifically on domestic political matters. Drawing on Nguyen's (2013) model, five articles from the publication are analyzed to identify both direct and indirect methods of criticism. The findings reveal a thoughtful balance between direct and indirect strategies. Direct criticism involves four elements: negative evaluation, stating a problem, cautioning about potential negative consequences, and statements about difficulties. Furthermore, indirect criticism employs various tactics such as indicating standards, correction, advice about change, and uncertainty. The study underlines the significance of a diverse array of criticism strategies for effective communication and promoting meaningful conversations in editorial columns.en-US
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.identifierhttps://globalresearchnetwork.us/index.php/ajshr/article/view/2172
dc.identifier.urihttp://dspace.umsida.ac.id/handle/123456789/10558
dc.languageeng
dc.publisher"GLOBAL RESEARCH NETWORK" LLCen-US
dc.relationhttps://globalresearchnetwork.us/index.php/ajshr/article/view/2172/1966
dc.sourceAmerican Journal of Social and Humanitarian Research; Vol. 4 No. 4 (2023): American Journal of Social and Humanitarian Research; 156-164en-US
dc.source2690-9626
dc.subjectcriticizingen-US
dc.subjectopinion columnen-US
dc.subjectnegative evaluationen-US
dc.subjectindicating standardsen-US
dc.titleA Pragmatic Analysis of Criticizing in The Guardian’s Opinion Columnen-US
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.typePeer-reviewed Articleen-US
Files
Collections
American Journal of Social and Humanitarian Research (AJSHR)