Pragmatics

Assignment

TOPIC: SPEECH ACTS IN CLASSROOM DISCOURSE

Submitted to: Ma’am kulsoom

Submitted by: Seemab Abbas (80)

Nazia Nawaz (90)

Saba khalid (93) Sadia (79)

Department: BS (Hons.) English-VI

Date: 18-May- 2015

BILQUISE POST GRADUATE COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, P.A.F BASE NURKHAN

CONTENT

Chapter #01INTRODUCTION

Background of study Aims and objectives of study Research question Hypothesis

Chapter #02

LITERATURE REVIEW

Definition of pragmatics Definition of speech acts Classification of speech acts Previous researches

Chapter #03RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research problem Hypothesis Type of research Population Sample Tool of data collection

Chapter #04DATA COLLECTION AND PRESENTATION

Chapter #05

CONCLUSION AND REFERENCES

CHAPTER 01

INTRODUCTION

Background study:We have conducted our research on speech acts in classroom discourse. We analyzed how social authority affects the use of speech acts in classroom discourse. We wanted to prove that teachers use direct speech act in classrooms during their lectures so our population for this research was Bilquis postgraduate college and our sample includes BS English 4th and 6th semesters. Our research is Qualitative as well as Quantitative. We recorded the lectures delivered by teachers in their respective classes.

Aims and Objectives:

To identify the types of speech acts that emerges and are maintained in classroom interaction between the teacher and the students.

To describe when and how those types of speech acts are constructed and developed between the teacher and the students in order to negotiate meaning in classroom interaction.

People having higher social power use direct speech acts in their communication.

Role-play activities are particularly suitable for practicing the use of speech acts.

Feedback and discussion are useful activities for speech act teaching because students need to talk about their perceptions & awareness

Research question:

How speech acts are used differently according to the social authority in classroom.

Hypothesis:

People having higher social power use direct speech acts in their communication.

Chapter 02

LITERATURE REVIEW

Pragmatics:

Pragmatics is concerned with the study of meaning as communicated by a speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader). Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning. This type of study necessarily involves the interpretation of what people mean in a particular context and how the context influences what is said. Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning. We might say that is the investigation of invisible meaning. Pragmatics is the study of how more gets communicated than is said. On the assumption of how close or distant the listener is, determine how much needs to be said. It deals with the study of expression of relative distance.

Speech acts:

Actions performed via utterances are generally called speech acts. In English; are commonly given more specific labels, such as apology, complaint, complement, invitation, promise, or request. These descriptive terms for different kinds of speech acts apply to the speaker’s communicative intention in producing an utterance.

Making a statement may be the paradigmatic use of language, but there are all sorts of other things we can do with words. We can make requests, ask questions, give orders, make promises, give thanks, offer apologies, and so on. Moreover, almost any speech act is really the performance of several acts at once, distinguished by different aspects of the speaker's intention: there is the act of saying something, what one does in saying it, such as requesting or promising, and how one is trying to affect one's audience.

Three levels of speech acts

Speech acts can be analyzed on three levels:

1. A locutionary act, the performance of an utterance: the actual utterance and its ostensible meaning, comprising phonetic, phatic and rhetic acts corresponding to the verbal, syntactic and semantic aspects of any meaningful utterance;

2. an illocutionary act: the pragmatic 'illocutionary force' of the utterance, thus its intended significance as a socially valid verbal action (see below);

3. and in certain cases a further perlocutionary act: its actual effect, such as persuading, convincing, scaring, enlightening, inspiring, or otherwise getting someone to do or realize something, whether intended or not (Austin 1962)

Types of speech acts:

Representatives are such utterances which commit the hearer to the truth of

the expressed proposition (e.g. asserting, concluding)

The name of the British queen is Elizabeth.

Directives are attempts by the speaker to get the addressee to do something

(e.g. ordering, requesting)

Would you make me a cup of tea?

Commissives commit the speaker to some future course of action (e.g.

promising, offering)

I promise to come at eight and cook a nice dinner for you.

Expressives express a psychological state (e.g. thanking, congratulating)

Thank you for your kind offer.

Declarations effect immediate changes in the institutional state of affairs

and which tend to rely on elaborate extra-linguistic institutions (e.g. christening,

declaring war)

I bequeath all my property to my beloved fiancee.

Previous researches:

Earch by ReTerry Ackerman, Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Yamuna Kachru, K.R. Rose, Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, 4088 Foreign Languages Building, 707 South Mathews Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.

This research is the Cross Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP). The CCSARP methodology raises issues which should be addressed to further develop speech act research. One of these issues is the construction of questionnaires, or discourse-completion tests (DCTs). This paper reports the results of a study in which two forms of a DCT were administered to native speakers of American English. One form included hearer response (HR DCT), while the other form did not (NoHR DCT). The two forms were identical in all other respects. The results showed that although responses on the NoHR DCT tended to be slightly longer and use slightly more supportive moves and downgraders, inclusion of hearer response did not have a significant effect on requests elicited.

This journal looks at the construction of questionnaires, involving speech act responses, in American English. Background research was conducted into a study where a questionnaire was formed containing eight request dialogues and eight apology dialogues. Participants were given a conversational structure which included a listener response and a preceding blank space to be filled in with a request or apology. The study gave rise to an overwhelming number of overt apologies and indirect requests, prompting Rose(2002) to research this further, and determine whether there was a significant difference with the inclusion of hearer response.In his own study two questionnaires were prepared one including the hearer response and the other not, this time however only involving six situations. The findings were that the no hearer response questionnaires tended to contain slightly longer responses and used slightly more supportive moves. The inclusion of hearer response did not have significant impact on the requests elicited and so therefore would pose no issue for miscommunication.

University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USFerris State University, Big Rapids, MI, USACaleb T. Carr, Department of Communication, University of Oklahoma, 131 Burton Hall, 610 Elm Avenue, Norman, OK 730

This research examines the use of speech acts in computer-mediated communication, specifically in the status messages of the social network site Facebook, to communicate in both a mass and an interpersonal medium. A total of 204 status messages created by 46 participants were captured 3 times daily over 14 consecutive days. Content analysis of these data revealed that status messages were most frequently constructed with expressive speech acts, followed by assertives. Additionally, humor was integrated into almost 20% of these status messages. These findings demonstrate differences in how users express themselves in alternate media. Findings address implications for self-presentation in social networks and theoretical implications for computer-mediated communication research.

Rachele De Felice Paul Deane September 2012

This report discussed several issues of relevance for the TOEIC Writing e-mail task. They described an approach to the automated scoring of this task, focusing on the presence of speech acts in the test responses. The computational model for automated speech act identification they developed achieves up to 79.28% accuracy; they have suggested possible solutions to achieve better performance. They also compared their TOEIC e-mail data to corpora of speech-act annotated native English e-mails, and discussed the impact of differences in speech act use between native and non-native English. They believe this study is a useful first attempt at developing a comprehensive approach to the automated scoring of the TOEIC e-mail task.

Barnlund and Yoshioka (1990)

A study conducted on Japanese and American speakers. Barnlund and Yoshioka (1990) have shown that there are some “critical cultural variables” (p. 197) that influence the way speakers apologize. Thus, the study has shown that Japanese

speakers used more direct and extreme apologies, while Americans were more indirect. The methodology used was, however, different than the 32 one in the CCSARP, which could also be one of the reasons that the findings differed. The authors used a scale type response questionnaire of 14 situations that were selected after conducting semi structured interviews with native speakers of both cultures.

(Tamanaha, 2003)

Similar findings have been reported by another study that compared speakers of American English and Japanese. However, this time the focus of the investigation was comparing American learners of Japanese to both native speakers of English and of Japanese (Tamanaha, 2003). According to the study, native speakers of English used more rational strategies, while native speakers of Japanese more emotional ones. For example, the Japanese speakers would express remorse and use explicit expressions of apology, while the American speakers would give an explanation or justification to the offense and then use an explicit apology. Tamanaha has attributed these results to the fact that there are important underlying differences between the American and Japanese cultures.(Edmundson 1992) perception of apologies (Edmundson 1992) for instance found that, in a New Zealand 183 naturally occurring corpus and based on gender, women used apologies more than men, women apologized to other women more than to men, and men apologized to women more than to men.

Research was conducted on Speech Act Theory, Discourse Structure and Indirect Speech Acts by Peter Wilfred Hesling Smith in September 1991.The research aimed at exploring the fact that if the theories of Austen and Searle are viable theory of language usage, then speech act theory must be able to integrate with a theory of discourse structure, because if speech acts are identifiable as units of language, then it must be possible include them in a model of discourse. He worked through examples of several speech act verbs to develop action schemas, which he expressed in what he had called the utterance logical form. The utterance logical form can be used, along with other information to build up the final utterance. There were also a set of states, which were essentially pre-conditions for the act to take place, which he had expressed as cognitive states. Finally, there was a presumed effect, which was an expression of the effect the speaker would like to have upon the hearer. He seeks to explain sequencing of speech acts within a discourse structure. He did it by using a relevance relationship between adjacent

speech acts, and also describes how certain cognitive states can be used to explain a form of pairing between speech acts that relate to the same proposition. The final description of a speech act consisted of a schematic plan which contained an action in the form of what the speaker wants to express in terms of their beliefs or wants. Hence when making an assertive, the speaker expresses his belief. This belief may be modified by modal or deontic operators. There are also a set of preconditions (presupposed cognitive states) that express two things: those things that the speaker needs to know or to have thought about in order to make a given speech act. Secondly, they include a set of states that enable the speaker to determine (to some extent) the sort of response that they will receive from the hearer. For example with an assertive, the speaker knows that the hearer may not believe him and is prepared for this. This theory not only dissolves the distinction between conversational analysis theories (at the appropriate level) and those of discourse analysis, but it also describes how a particular act is to be performed within a language community.

“Speech act sets of refusal and complaint: A comparison of native and non-native English speakers’ production” by Sharyl Tanck. To compare the pragmatic competence of adult ESL speakers to that of adult native English speakers when performing the speech acts of complaints and refusals, all participants were given Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs) wherein they were asked to write their responses to six prompts, representing the two speech acts and two distractors, within familiar equal and superior-inferior relationships. DCTs have been used as the basis of many speech act studies, including Olshtain and Weinbach’s (1987) study of complaints, and Beebe, Takahashi and Uliss-Weltz’ (1990) study of refusals.Responses of native English speakers were reviewed for evidence of common components of speech act sets to establish a set baseline responses. The responses made by non-native speakers were then evaluated for the presence and quality of the speech act components as compared to the native speakers. The participants were 25 graduate students at American University in Washington, DC. Subjects’ ages ranged from 21 to 46 years old. Of the 25 subjects, five were male and 20 were female. Twelve of the participants were native speakers of English. Thirteen of the subjects were non-native speakers of English, whose first languages included Chinese,

Haitian Creole, Korean, Polish, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, and Thai. The study was conducted at American University in Washington, DC, USA. All subjects maintained residences in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. A stratified sampling technique was used. This study illuminates several areas where ESL/EFL students might appear inappropriate (i.e., confrontational, presumptuous, vague) when making a refusal or complaint. In this research in order to help their students achieve optimal pragmatic success, teachers need to make students aware of specific speech act sets and the accompanying linguistic features that are necessary to produce appropriate and well-received refusals, complaints, and other important speech acts. Non-native speakers, especially those with little opportunity for interaction, may not have knowledge of the routine of semantic formulae, or may not have internalized such rules to adequately produce them in spontaneous speech (Kasper, 1997), and textbooks are generally not a good source of input for students when studying pragmatic functions (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001). However, specific speech act instruction could lead to greater pragmatic competence for non-native speakers. In one study, ESL students demonstrated improvement in their performances of complaints and refusals after 3.5 hours of instruction, and continued to maintain their improvement in a post-test given six months after the instruction (Morrow, 1996, as cited in Kasper, 2001). Hudson (2001) suggests that teachers could use DCTs in the classroom to focus on social distance between speakers, and then use role play activities to mimic an authentic situation, beginning with the more semantically formulaic apologies and requests. These speech acts may be easier for students to acquire than refusals and complaints, which demand more social interaction as well as many face-saving moves. Future studies should investigate semantic formulae, or speech act sets, as potential materials for curriculum development, as well as classroom applications of the DCT.

“Modelling speech acts in conversational discourse” by Amanda Schiffrin in the year 2005. Beliefs, plans and goals of this research were:

Having described the context for identifying a wide range of speech acts, a suitable next stage would be to attempt to incorporate some modelling of beliefs and reasoning. At present the STM only deals with speech act recognition, and while there is still a long way to go with this function of the model, it eventually

incorporating speech act generation as well. This may well include looking at plans and goals in conversation. A final aim would be to have several autonomous agents endowed with differing belief systems conversing with each other according to their STMs and beliefs, backtracking when the conversation shows model inconsistencies, updating commitments constantly, but yet allowing each agent/participant’s model to ‘come apart’ as it were from each other’s (accounting for misunderstandings and contradictory belief systems in ‘real life’). This idea is very much in line with current Agent Negotiation Protocol and Theory in Distributive Artificial Intelligence systems. His aim was to start to map out a grammar of discourse, to explain how it is that we understand what we mean from what we say. This aim he felt that he had achieved. He believe that this is the whole story: just as grammarians looking for a definitive sentential grammar have not yet found the set of rules that comprehensively accounts for every sentence formulation available in any language, no-one working in dialogue modelling has yet managed the same at the utterance level. However, many grammars are sophisticated enough these days to be able to encompass the overwhelming categories. The same can be said of discourse grammars.majority of (grammatically correct) sentences, to the satisfaction of a given set of criteria. One of the factors influencing the effectiveness of sentence grammars is that the complexity of the problem of coverage of different formulations increases exponentially depending upon the fineness of ‘grain’ of the grammatical

Chapter 03

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research question

How speech acts are used differently according to the social authority in classroom.

HypothesisPeople having higher social power use direct speech acts in their communication.

Type of research

Our research is based on qualitative analysis as well as quantitative analysis

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

Burns & Grove 2005:23 defines: Quantitative research is a formal,

objective, systematic process in which numerical data are used to obtain

information about the world.

This research method is used:

To describe variables;

To examine relationships among variables;

To determine cause-and-effect interactions between variables.

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Dezin and Lincon (1996) define qualitative research as “Qualitative

research is multi method in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic

approach to its subject matter. Qualitative research involves the studied use

and collection of a variety of empirical materials ; case study, personal

experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical,

interactional, and visual texts -- that describe routine and problematic

moments and meaning in individuals' lives

Creswell's definition of Qualitative Research: Qualitative research is an

inquiry process of understanding based on distinct methodological traditions

of inquiry that explore a social or human problem.

Population

We have taken Bilquis postgraduate college as our population.

Sample

We have taken BS (Hornz) English 4th and 6th semesters as our sample. We recorded three lectures of poetry, semantics and psycholinguistics for the duration

of 25 minutes, 30 minutes and 50 minutes respectively.

Tool of data collection

Recording and observation is our tool of data.

Our sources for data collection were primary and secondary sources.

Primary sources  is an original object or document -- the raw material or first-hand information, source material that is closest to what is being studied.

Primary sources vary by discipline and can include historical and legal documents, eye witness accounts, results of an experiment, statistical data, pieces of creative writing, and art objects. In the natural and social sciences, the results of an experiment or study are typically found in scholarly articles or papers delivered at conferences, so those articles and papers that present the original results are considered primary sources.

 Secondary source is something written about a primary source. Secondary sources include comments on, interpretations of, or discussions about the original material. You can think of secondary sources as second-hand information. If I tell you something, I am the primary source. If you tell someone else what I told you, you are the secondary source. Secondary source materials can be articles in newspapers or popular magazines, book or movie reviews, or articles found in scholarly journals that evaluate or criticize someone else's original research.

Chapter 04

Lecture # 01

i. Ok! What is this? (direct speech act)ii. What do you think the poem is actually about? (direct speech act)

iii. What does u think about the word Grecian Urn? (direct speech act)iv. It is a Greek pot. (direct speech act)v. It is the way of preserving the aches of ancient bodies.(factual)

vi. What about assignments ma’am? (direct speech act)vii. We will talk in last 5 minutes not now not now. (promise)

viii. Who would like to read the first four lines? (command)ix. We want any human being (indirect speech act)x. Ok Buraira! You can do it. (direct speech act)

xi. (hand raise )(gesture)xii. Saba!(command)

xiii. After reading the poem what idea did come in your mind? (direct speech act)

xiv. There is another one. (indirect speech act)xv. I asked you to come prepared. (order)

xvi. What idea do you form about this poet and poem? (direct speech act)xvii. How we can relate this poem with those points? (direct speech act)

xviii. Ok! Let me finish that. (suggestion)xix. What about the title Grecian Urn (ode to Grecian urn) (direct speech act)xx. Do you think it’s an imaginary urn? (direct speech act)

xxi. Do you think it is actually exist? (direct speech act)xxii. No ma’am!(refusal)

xxiii. He wrote this poem in 1819 and in 1812 lord Elgian …(factual)xxiv. He might have visited the museum and where he saw……. (suggestion)xxv. And poem is about one of those Urn.(factual)

xxvi. Ma’am ye British museum khaha hai? (direct speech act)xxvii. Lord Elgian brought it and placed it in museum and keats visited it.(factual)

xxviii. Lord Elgian was not a shair.(factual)xxix. Ok let’s start with the development of thoughts (suggestion)

xxx. Who’ll read it again? (direct speech act)xxxi. Mahrukh read the first four lines (order)

xxxii. Ok focus on the first four lines .whom the poet is addressing? (order and direct speech act)

xxxiii. He is addressing someone(factual)xxxiv. Don’t you think he’s talking to the urn.(direct speech act)xxxv. What about unravished bride? (direct speech act)

xxxvi. Who? What’s the meaning of foster child? (direct speech act)xxxvii. (Hands raise) ma’am, ma’am! (gesture)

xxxviii. Unravished untouched hota hana? (direct speech act)xxxix. Unravished mean untouched is ka mtlb new naa tou jo bride ati ha wo

kamosh he rehti ha (representative)xl. Do you think it is a Pakistani or Asian poet who have an idea of bride who is

very quiet and shy?(direct or indirect)xli. It’s not in that context (factual and direct speech act)

xlii. Ma’am hum kal se parh kr aen gy (request)xliii. This is very desi explanation.(indirect speech act)xliv. Yamna! What you say?(direct speech act)xlv. Asey parh le tou parh le tum logo ney poem. (indirect speech act)

xlvi. Sorry,sorry!(refusal)xlvii. Kitny log parh kr aen hain? (direct speech act)

xlviii. Ok!we stop here! (declarative)xlix. Tomorrow come prepared(order and commissive)

l. I’ll ask u about……………(commissive and direct speech act)li. Let me bring my book (suggestion)

Lecture #02

i. How does u locate a subject with in a sentence? (direct speech act)ii. Where is the subject the subject? (direct speech act)

iii. Yes, technically it happens that in active and passive voice when you are changing a sentence into passive one, the subject becomes the object.(factual)

iv. now remember yesterday we did thematic sentences and active and passive voice.(factual and representative)

v. now let’s do an activity(suggestion)vi. I am going to dictate few sentences (commissives)

vii. And you have to analyze the subject silently(order)viii. Just stated it down and raise your hands without saying anything.(order)

ix. Now first one (declarative)x. You have to identify the subjects (order)

xi. What is the subject in the 1st sentence just and what is the verb?(direct speech act)

xii. Why not writing?(direct speech act)xiii. The next one.(declarative)xiv. Why not………… (suggestion and agreement)xv. Object ha na???? (indirect speech act)

xvi. Now over here……..(directive and instruction)xvii. Where is the verb? (direct speech act)

xviii. Take down another set of sentences (order) xix. Identify the adverbs in the following sentences (order)xx. No 01,no 02 no 03 (declaratives)

xxi. Just write and match the examples to your experiences (order)xxii. We are going start very soon(commissive)

xxiii. Ma’am ek or bolain paanch pory ho jaain gy(suggestion)xxiv. Khud batana than aa (suggestion)xxv. You are feeling very sleepy(representative ,comment)

xxvi. Where is the adverb in the statement? (direct speech act)xxvii. Adverbs answer what kind of questions? (direct speech act )

xxviii. Next (declarative)xxix. Again there are two (factual)

Lecture 03

i. Sorry! You r not able to watch it.(indirect speech act and expressive)ii. (Dragging of rostem)…… (gesture)

iii. Mother tongue ko heritage language be bolty hain.(representative)iv. What is the name of 1st language?(direct speech act)v. Now let us see that how it is related with language acquisition.( suggestion

and indirect speech act)

vi. It is fine!(direct speech act)vii. Now let us watch the video.(suggestion)

viii. First of all we’ll talk about ……………(commissive)ix. Ok ! (gesture)x. Do you remember that……(direct speech act)

xi. Can anyone of you explain this experiment(direct speech act)xii. Buraira! (command)

xiii. Can anyone of you elaborate it better?(direct speech act)xiv. Let us see that what is operant conditioning?(indirect speech act and

suggestion)xv. So what did this call an operant conditioning? (direct speech act)

xvi. What is the most important in operant conditioning? (direct speech act)xvii. So what is the conclusion of all this? (direct speech act)

xviii. So who was that person? Can you remember? (direct speech act)xix. B.F Skinner(all students speak)(representative and factual)xx. What did this method said that (direct speech act)

xxi. Do you believe that it is a very good day of teaching.(direct speech act)xxii. Do you believe it?? This method of audiolingulisim.(representative)

xxiii. What is the main points of…………(direct speech act)xxiv. Do believe that language cannot be learnt through habit formation.(direct

speech act)xxv. Don’t you feel like that….(representative)

xxvi. So girls what are the 3 main points of behaviorism.(direct speech act)xxvii. What is negative reinforcement?(direct speech act)

xxviii. Can you tell me what is negative reinforcement?(direct speech act)xxix. Tayyaba! (command)xxx. Who rejected the behaviorist theory?(direct speech act)

xxxi. Buraira! have you got the notes?(direct speech act)

DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS:

SPEECH ACTS LECTURE 1 LECTURE 2 LECTURE 3

Direct Speech Acts 21 7 19Indirect Speech Act 6 1 3Declaratives 1 0 0Representatives 9 4 4

Expressive 2 0 1

Directives 10 14 5Commissives 4 0 0Gestures 1 0 3

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS:

We conducted a research on speech acts in classroom discourse and collected our data from primary and secondary sources. We recorded three lectures of poetry, semantics and psycholinguistics for the duration of 25 minutes, 30 minutes and 50 minutes respectively. After analyzing the data we come to know that different

Direct

Spee

c Acts

Indirect

Spee

ch Act

Declara

tives

Repres

entati

ves

Expres

sives

Dirrecti

ves

Commissive

s

Gestures

0

5

10

15

20

25

LECTURE 1LECTURE 2LECTURE 3

speech acts are used in classroom discourse and these speech acts are classified in different categories. The more frequently used speech acts in our recording are directives and direct speech acts by teachers. Direct speech acts are used by students via responses. Other categories of speech acts are also used like representative, commissives, expresives, gesture, declaratives and indirect speech acts; but their level of occurrence as compared to the use of directives and direct speech is very low

As our hypothesis is “People having higher social power use direct speech acts in their communication”

Hence it is proved that teachers having more social power use direct speech acts and directives in their classroom, during lectures. The deference level due to the social power, teachers use more direct speech acts in classroom, to maintain the deference between teachers and students.

Chapter 05

Conclusion:

After conducting this research we came to know that the teachers having more social power use direct speech acts and directives more in number than the other categories of speech acts. In classroom they have to behave formally and because of having more power they use certain utterances which shows command, order, suggestion. They mostly use those sentences or utterances which attempts to make the world fit the words. In the same way students having less social power in the classroom as compared to the teacher they simply use ‘too the point’ responses and tend to behave formally, their gesture and expressions shows that they are listening to the teacher and they have to do what so ever teacher want from them otherwise it will be considered unethical or something unusual. From the table as shown earlier, we came to know that in all three lectures direct speech acts are more in number and the other category of speech acts which are greater in number is directives. Hence, our hypothesis proved that because of more social power teachers use more direct speech acts then any other category of speech acts.

References

https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/research/tr/1992/49/92-49.pdf

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?rep=rep1&type=pdf&doi=10.1.1.216.3928

https://is.muni.cz/th/109677/ff_b/bachelor_thesis.pdf

louisville.libguides.com/primary_sources

www.lib.umd.edu/tl/guides/primary-sources

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_research