doi: 10.56294/sctconf2024.1418

ORIGINAL

Ways of utilising Inferences in Dr. Phil Selected TV Shows

Formas de utilización de inferencias en programas de televisión seleccionados del Dr. Phil

Adnan Mohaisen Ali Alzuabidi¹ *, Mawj Khalil Ibrahim² , Estabraq Rasheed Ibrahim³ , Fatima Raheem Almosawi¹

¹Basic Education College, University of Misan, Department of English Language. Misan, Iraq.

²Mustansiriyah University, College of Education, Department of English Language. Baghdad, Iraq.

³Baghdad College of Economic Sciences University. Baghdad, Iraq.

Cite as: Ali Alzuabidi AM, Khalil Ibrahim M, Rasheed Ibrahim E, Raheem Almosawi F. Ways of utilising Inferences in Dr. Phil Selected TV Shows. Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología - Serie de Conferencias. 2025; 3:.1418. https://doi.org/10.56294/sctconf2024.1418

Submitted: 18-05-2024          Revised: 20-09-2024          Accepted: 09-02-2025          Published: 10-02-2025

Editor: Dr. William Castillo-González

Corresponding author: Adnan Mohaisen Ali Alzuabidi *

ABSTRACT

The investigation delves into the concept of inferences in the use of the English language, with a particular emphasis on pragmatics and Grice’s maxims. It underscores the significance of inferences in comprehending communicative intent, particularly during interviews. The objective of the research is to stimulate further investigation of inference in related studies, thereby providing valuable insights for English language users and linguistics students. Furthermore, the analysis of “The Dr. Phil Show” investigates its influence on the representation of psychotherapy and popular culture. The paper conducted a statistical analysis of the types and frequencies of questions in seven texts from Dr. Phil’s TV program to reveal strategies employed to obscure reality. The focus was on interviewee responses. The study distinguished between live and edited segments by examining 80 episodes, thereby advancing the cultivation of research and improving comprehension of psychotherapy practices. Additionally, it addresses potential misrepresentations in media portrayals. The results emphasise the importance of precise depictions of therapy in influencing the opinions of viewers.

Keywords: Deceptive Speakers; Cooperative Principles; Implicature; Inferences.

RESUMEN

La investigación profundiza en el concepto de inferencias en el uso del idioma inglés, con un énfasis particular en la pragmática y las máximas de Grice. Subraya la importancia de las inferencias en la comprensión de la intención comunicativa, particularmente durante las entrevistas. El objetivo de la investigación es estimular una mayor indagación sobre la inferencia en estudios relacionados, proporcionando así valiosos conocimientos para los usuarios del idioma inglés y los estudiantes de lingüística. Además, el análisis de “The Dr. Phil Show” investiga su influencia en la representación de la psicoterapia y la cultura popular. El artículo realizó un análisis estadístico de los tipos y frecuencias de preguntas en siete textos del programa de televisión de Dr. Phil para revelar las estrategias empleadas para oscurecer la realidad. El enfoque estuvo en las respuestas de los entrevistados. El estudio distinguió entre segmentos en vivo y editados al examinar 80 episodios, avanzando así en el cultivo de la investigación y mejorando la comprensión de las prácticas de psicoterapia. Además, aborda las posibles tergiversaciones en las representaciones mediáticas. Los resultados enfatizan la importancia de las representaciones precisas de la terapia en la influencia de las opiniones de los espectadores.

Palabras clave: Oradores Engañosos; Principios Cooperativos; Implicatura; Inferencias.

INTRODUCTION

Implicit speech and the use of inferences to deduce speaker meaning are concepts that the majority of English speakers are unfamiliar with. If one wants their speech to flow well, they need adhere to a set of maxims that Grice established in the area of pragmatics. Whenever speakers disobey grammatical rules, it is up to the listener to form conclusions about the intended meaning of the words said. The interviewer’s ability to regulate inferences in order to obtain the interviewee’s communication value was the focus of this study.
When it comes to the study of language and communication, the idea of implicature is crucial for grasping how meaning is communicated beyond what is explicitly stated. Philosopher H.P. Grice posits that implicature occurs when the intended meaning goes beyond a literal reading of the words. What is known as “conversational implicature,”⁽¹⁾ the unsaid meanings that arise in normal conversations, is a prime example of this phenomena. By incorporating assumptions into the meaning of words, speakers are able to subtly communicate complex ideas without directly stating them. Grice posits that universal rules govern human interaction in his work, which focusses on the ways in which people understand the significance of comments made in conversation. At the heart of his theory is what he calls the “Cooperative Principle” (CP), which states that people should only participate in conversations if their contributions are relevant to the topic at hand. The four tenets of the CP that Grice lays out are as follows: (1) Provide just the appropriate quantity of information; (2) Make sure the material is accurate; (3) Stay relevant; and (4) Maintain clarity and organisation.

Presenters have the option of following these rules, which will make their talks more illuminating and easier to understand, or they may completely ignore them. While the goal of violating a maxim is usually to mislead the audience, the purpose of flouting is to allow for more than one interpretation, often via the use of rhetorical elements such as metaphor or irony. Also, speakers may choose not to follow maxims for legal or ethical reasons; for example, therapists and clergy members may have confidentiality requirements.⁽²⁾ The overall effect of Grice’s framework is to provide a methodical way to comprehend the dynamics of conversations and the consequences of different communication tactics. By offering a concise yet substantive treatment of the topic of inferences, the present work aspires to be of considerable importance to English language users with an interest in the area of linguistics. Students at the graduate and post-graduate levels studying English Language and Linguistics were also expected to find it important. Researchers in the area of English language and linguistics may find this study useful in shedding light on the topic of inference and paving the way for future studies along similar lines.

The Problem of the Study

Most of users of English are not familiar with the phenomenon of implicature and the ways of applying inferences to elicit the intended meaning of the participants. In the field of pragmatics, Grice initiated a group of maxims that need to be maintained to make the speech smoothly flown. In some cases, users of language flout the maxims and this respect, the recipient should generate some sorts of inferences to draw the illocutionary force of the communicative acts initiated. In this study, the researchers highlighted the inferences controlled by the interviewer to elicit the communication value of the interviewee.

The Objective of the Study

The current study was hoped to be a great significance to the users of English Language who are interested in the field of Linguistics by providing them with a brief significant account of the subject of inferences. It was also hoped to be significant to graduate and post graduate students of English who are majored in English Language and Linguistics. This study could highlight and draw the path to the other researchers to utilize the inference subject and apply to similar researches in the field of English language and linguistics.

The present research is limited to:

1. The phenomena of ‘inferences’ in English.

2. Some selected TV shows of Dr. Phill.

3. The present paper is limited to investigating some strategies of implicature, namely are (Hedges, Interjections, Irony, Metaphor, and Circumlocution).

4. The study is limited to a descriptive model of analysis.

5. The study is limited to the strategies of politeness.

6. In line with earlier cultivation studies (e.g., Chory-Assad & Tamborini, 2003; Pfau, Mullen, & Garrow, 1995), this work used a quantitative research approach. The goal of quantitative design is to avoid impressionistic perceptions. A quantitative method maintains the relative frequency of occurrences in perspective and helps avoid accusations of bias against McGraw in the instance of The Dr. Phil Show.

The Significance of the Study

Before making his television hosting debut in 2002, McGraw was already famous after appearing often on Dr. Phil’s talk show for four years. Even the most optimistic ratings predictions for the first week of The Dr. Phil Show were surpassed (Albiniak, 2002). The program is still quite popular eight years after it first aired, ranking second among syndicated discussion shows (TV by the Numbers, 2010). The Dr. Phil Show has grown its proportion of the very desirable demographic of young, well-off women, which is of great importance to marketers.⁽⁴⁾ When compared to other talk show hosts, McGraw stands apart. Numerous catchphrases, such “This is a wake-up call” and “You can’t change what you don’t acknowledge,” have made him his own brand.⁽⁵⁾ For example, He doesn’t have to bring in expert panels as other talk show presenters do since he is the expert. According to Albiniak (2002), McGraw is therefore the program’s premise and substance. The program and its presenter have had a huge effect on popular culture. From 2002 to 2010, there were 65 allusions to and 11 parodies of The Dr Phil Show in various TV shows and films, according to the Internet Movie Database (2010).

Concept of Face

Cutting (2002) notes that the judicious use of language expressions is what politeness is supposed to mean.⁽²⁾ ”Politeness is a matter of what is said, and not a matter of what is thought or believed,“ claims Cruse (2000). Concern for politeness has long been seen by pragmatics to be one of the main drivers of implicature use.⁽³⁾ In both Brown and Levinson‘s theories of politeness, face plays a crucial part. ”A complex system for softening face threatening behaviour“⁽⁴⁾ is how they define politeness.⁽⁶⁾ In a particular engagement, the parties have two desires regarding their faces. They are:

1. Positive Face: “the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others” (Brown and Levinson).⁽⁷⁾

2. Negative Face: “the desire of every ‘competent adult member’ that their actions be free from interference by others”.⁽⁸⁾

Positive politeness happens when someone takes into account the positive side of both the person they’re talking to and themselves. Negative politeness focusses on respecting the negative face of both the speaker and the listener8. Speakers hope that others will go along with what they say when it comes to their public self-image. Sometimes, the speaker’s words can come off as a bit of a threat to the listener’s face, which is what Brown and Levinson refer to as a Face Threatening Act (FTA). Sometimes, people use different expressions and ways of speaking to keep things smooth and avoid putting anyone in an awkward position. So, this is what we call a Face Saving-Act (FSA) according to Yule.⁽⁹⁾ Brown and Levinson assert that adult speakers may need to evade doing face-threatening acts (FTAs) or, at the very least, occasionally endeavour to mitigate the intensity of these acts through specific methods. They are categorised into two primary types: on-record strategies and off-record methods.⁽¹⁰⁾ When interlocutors communicate with explicit intent, devoid of any implicit cues, this is referred to as an on-record strategy. Speakers can apply the documented tactics either directly (without mitigation) or with mitigation. Bald on record (without mitigating action) is a direct method of articulating an action, such as making a request, when the speaker communicates simply, succinctly, and clearly.⁽¹¹⁾

Off-record strategies are employed when speakers communicate their goals by circumventing direct expression, opting instead for implicit and indirect methods.⁽¹²⁾

Strategies of Implicature

1. Hedges: Fraser posits that hedging in discourse may result in diminished pragmatic competence. He defines hedges as “a rhetorical strategy that indicates a lack of complete commitment either to the full category membership of a term or expression in the utterance (content mitigation) or to the intended illocutionary force of the utterance (force mitigation)”.⁽¹³⁾

2. Interjections are defined as words that express an interlocutor’s current emotional state or reaction to elements within linguistic or extralinguistic contexts. ⁽¹⁴⁾

3. Irony, according to Grice’s interpretation (1975), is characterised as overt deception that generates an implicature contradictory to the literal meaning of the statement.⁽¹⁵⁾

4. Evasion entails ambiguity and equivocation. It is characterised as a non-responsive reaction, or one that logically relates to the interrogation process without addressing the specific issue. Harris defines a reply as evasive if it fails to directly address the issue or if it contests the question.⁽¹⁵⁾

5. Metaphor: Grice defines metaphor as “a form of speaker meaning in which a speaker articulates one idea while conveying another.” He regards metaphor as a type of implicature.⁽¹⁶⁾

6. Circumlocution is defined as “the use of numerous words to convey an idea; an indirect or lengthy method of expression”.⁽¹⁷⁾ it is considered one of the communicative pragmatic strategies for expressing conversational implicatures.⁽¹⁶⁾

Implicature in Criminals’ Discourse

Criminals employ implicatures in many speaking activities, including threats. They can threaten both vocally and non-verbally. A scenario in which a defendant gestures with their hand in the shape of a firearm towards a prosecution witness upon entering the courtroom exemplifies a nonverbal threat. Verbal threats may also occur, shown by a criminal cautioning witnesses with the statement “Something will happen to you.” Individuals encounter a range of experiences, both favourable and unfavourable. However, in this instance, the situation is critical. The court’s determination that this represents a threat is justified, provided the comment is made with the goal to intimidate the witnesses.^{(18,19,20,21)}

METHOD

The present paper followed the descriptive model of analysis. The paper consisted seven selected texts used by Dr Phil in his TV Show with a criminal. Each text consisted of numbers of questions that the interviewee was requested to respond to. These responses were collected together and analyzed respectively to find the implicate created throughout the conversation and to analyse the inferences to highlight the strategies used by the interviewee to conceal the reality. The method of analysis relied on statistical analysis to sort out the types of strategies used by the interviewee, their types with the frequency of usages all over the interview.

RESULTS

The study analysed 80 hour-long episodes of The Dr. Phil Show recorded between February 1 and June 4, 2010, focusing on therapy session characteristics. Episodes not fitting this criterion, such as panel discussions, were excluded. A random selection created a constructed week of episodes, which addressed complex social and psychological issues like rivalry, bullying, body image, and abuse. The analysis centered on utterances by Dr. Phil McGraw, totalling 773, which were categorized according to specified variables. The coders observed a clear distinction between the live and edited segments in each episode. “Live” is characterised by events that seem to be occurring in the present moment. The live segments generally occur within the television studio, or, on occasion, in the backstage area. The overall impression conveys a sense of observing events in real-time, with only minor editing likely to occur. The majority of each episode consists of live segments. Concise edited chunks are used throughout the show. In the first portion of each program, brief edited clips of several minutes introduce the viewers to the day’s guests. The video footage is captured from the visitors’ actual environment, often inside their home. Edited parts often delineate commercial breaks. An edited portion is positioned just before and shortly after the commercial break. These portions may provide more insights into the visitors’ everyday lives. Each episode further includes promotional teasers for forthcoming episodes and previews of content that will appear later in the current episode. The modified passages are meticulously regulated, including additional music and sound effects. The shift to these portions is initiated by a video package featuring McGraw, with the audience directing their focus to the giant video monitors in the studio as the prelude begins.

Text 1

“Dr. Phill: What additional information did she provide?” Jason Michmallin: That? Perhaps I suggest that one should not exist if that is the manner in which one desires to contend. We encountered difficulties, engaged in conflict, and subsequently began to contend; however, it never reached a stage where I retaliated, though I was apprehensive. Dr. Phill: Indeed. Jason Michmallin: The next recollection I have is being in jail, as it did not immediately register why I was there. A few days later, I realized my circumstances, during which I withdrew myself, wept, and sought divine forgiveness. Jason Michmallin starts the interview by discussing the marital strife that ultimately resulted in his wife’s murder. Throughout the interview, Jason Michmallin used evasive techniques in an effort to avoid taking responsibility and maintain his dignity. Jason Michmallin’s evasive strategy-based maxim violations are the source of the implicature. Hesitation, interjections, and summarisation all serve to evade. “That?” he asks with an interjection as he starts to speak. Well, I could, you know, maybe. He gave the police a detailed account of how he killed his wife, but now he acts as though he has no recollection of the crime. Therefore, he is being an untrustworthy and dishonest conversationalist. Due to his omission of specifics on the conflict, killing, and body disposal, he summarises. As he puts it, “The next thing I remember is I’m in jail.” He suggests erasing certain details from memory. Another aspect of his personality that he tries to show is his positive side. “I hid out, sobbed, and prayed for God’s forgiveness.” By including certain untruthful details, he disproves the maxim of quality. Dr. Phill says that money was a dividing factor in Jason Michmallin and his wife’s argument, although he doesn’t say so. Since Jason Michmallin fails to provide the necessary information, the maxim of quantity is likewise broken.

Text 2

“Dr Phill: Mm-hmm. Well, you’re gonna have to do better than that for me.

Jason Michmallin: Okay,

Dr Phill: You’re gonna have to do better than that because this is where you lose me, this is where you lose me, you lose me with, we’re in the fight, and now I don’t remember anything, I don’t remember anything.”

“Jason Michmallin: I mean, I could get, go into that, she swung at me and, and all I mean, I, I re... I remember to a certain point” 

Jason Michmallin does his best to avoid feeling guilty and comes up with excuses to help him out. He acts like he’s forgotten some of the details about the murder. Dr. Phill gathers all the crime data from the police, so he can’t really persuade her. She puts his good side at risk when she tells him that she knows he’s been avoiding the issue. She starts off with interjections like “Mm-hmm” and “Well,” which carry an underlying meaning. In those bold statements, she suggests that “you confessed to and were found guilty of killing your wife, and now you’re trying to present yourself as innocent.” It’s pretty obvious that there’s a contradiction in what Jason Michmallin says, and it seems like he’s really playing with the idea of Quality. In text 1, he jumps from the fight straight to the prison. He says, “The next thing I remember is being in jail.” He says, “I remember to a certain point,” but you can tell he’s hesitating and even repeats himself. It seems like he’s trying to avoid facing the truth. That’s why Dr. Phil jumps in and gives him a warning about his face. She talks about the specifics of how he killed his wife in text 3. Jason Michmallin really plays with the maxim of Quantity since he doesn’t provide much information.

Text 3

“Dr. Phil: You don’t remember.”

Jason Michmallin: You know, I remember...

Dr. Phil: So, you’re being accused of hitting her,

Jason Michmallin: Yeah, I get it.

Dr. Phill: So, you know, with a marble rolling pin,

Jason Michmallin: Yeah, I get it.

Dr. Phil: So, they ended up wrapping her body in a comforter and putting it in the car,

Jason Michmallin: Yeah, I get it.

Dr. Phill: So, after getting hit with the rolling pin, she somehow wakes up, right?

Jason Michmallin: I get it.

Dr. Phil: So, you’ve been accused and you admitted to it, right?

Yeah, I did.

Dr. Phill: Alright, so first hitting her with a rock and then strangling her with the seatbelt.

Jason Michmallin: So, you know what? I’m just saying ...

Dr. Phil: So, you’re really going to sit here and say you don’t remember any of that?

Jason Michmallin: No way.”

Jason Michmallin is trying hard to save his face, but it’s all for nothing since Dr. Phill sees through all the real facts. She mentions all the illegal actions that were committed by Jason Michmallin to his wife. She’s kind of a challenge to his good vibes. Dr. Phil uses a straightforward approach to help him face the truth, as she communicates directly. His remarks about Dr. Phil’s speech, especially the parts where he said “I know” and “I did,” really show his disapproval. So, in a roundabout way, Jason Michmallin kind of admits that he’s trying to dodge the truth instead of just saying it straight out. He attempts to cut her off to keep dodging the question, but even when Dr. Phil gives him an opening, he just can’t seem to find a believable excuse.

When Dr. Phil asks Jason Michmallin, “and you’re gonna now sit here and tell me that you don’t remember any of that?” he’s not really looking for a straightforward answer. It’s basically a rhetorical question that comes off as a bit of a verbal jab. She gives Jason Michmallin a hard time for being dishonest. It’s a rhetorical question that has a bit of irony or sarcasm to it. This is a behind-the-scenes strategy that puts the addressee’s positive image at risk. She’s ignoring the principle of Quality by asking about something she already knows. Jason Michmallin’s response, “absolutely not,” really stands out when you consider his support for not remembering.

Text 4

“Dr Phill: Tell me what happened.

Jason Michmallin: She chased me out of the kitchen, she swung at me in the kitchen with the rolling pin. And I’ll be very honest at times, I wish I would have put my hands CHA and let her hit me. I ran…”

In the two interviews analysed, Dr. Phil engages with criminals in a direct manner. She appears to be oblivious to their feelings, particularly when they attempt to assert themselves or divert the audience’s attention. She instructs Jason Michmallin to provide a comprehensive account of the specifics of his crime, asking, “So, what happened?” She communicates in a straightforward and assured manner. Jason Michmallin appears to be facing some difficulties, as indicated by his negative expression. Dr. Phil employs a direct and transparent approach in his communication. Jason Michmallin engages with the Quality maxim by stating, “and I’ll be very honest at times,” in an attempt to deceive Dr. Phill into believing he experiences remorse for Naomi’s murder.

Text 5

“Jason Michmallin: The thing I remember...

Dr Phill: You’re telling me, you’re telling me, Jason Michmallin, you do not remember taking the rolling pin and hitting her with the rolling pin.

Dr Phill: (narrates) In his confession, Jason Michmallin told police that he grabbed the rolling pin and struck Naomi twice because she was fighting back.

Jason Michmallin: I remember nothing from that.”

Jason Michmallin keeps giving those vague answers and seems to be trying to defend some overlooked facts. Dr. Phil knows all about that evasion. In her comments earlier, Dr. Phill calls out Jason Michmallin for his dishonesty. He acknowledges that he hit Naomi, and she began to bleed, saying, “I gained a little control.” I ended up hitting her.  She begins to bleed. He’s trying to soften his story by saying that she still had the rolling pin in her hands and that his hitting was just an accident. Dr. Phill shares what Jason Michmallin told the police. He grabbed the rolling pin and gave Naomi a couple of whacks. During the interview, he claims he doesn’t recall anything, stating, “I remember nothing from that.” The tactic of evasion here is all about denial. He’s not really following the Quality maxim since he’s not stating what’s actually true. We also don’t see the quantity maxim being followed due to not having enough informative details introduced. Jason Michmallin clearly doesn’t get along with Dr. Phill. He’s putting Dr. Phil’s positive vibe at risk.

Text 6

“Jason Michmallin: The dreamlike part is, I remember, saying, I’ve got to help her I tried to…

Dr Phill: I’ve got to help her! That’s why you dragged her to the car?

Jason Michmallin: Yes. I am…, yes… I tried lifting her and I couldn‘t

Dr Phill: Uh- huh!

Jason Michmallin: She was heavy.

Dr Phill: Uh-huh!

Jason Michmallin: I knew I had to get her CHA stairs. 

Dr Phill: Uh-huh!

Jason Michmallin: It was a two-story house.

Dr Phill: Okay!

Jason Michmallin: That was how I got her,

Dr Phill: in the car?”

Excuses were being driven by Jason Michmallin. He wouldn’t have dragged his wife to the car if he truly regretted hitting her and it had been an accident, as he asserts. Instead, he may summon assistance by dialling 911 or any other suitable number in the event that he was unable to lift her. His completely unconvincing and worse than the crime itself are the justifications he fabricates and presents to Dr. Phill. He tries to appear virtuous by equivocating. One kind of circumlocution is equivocation. The Quality maxim is disregarded due to the utilisation of the circumlocution approach. She asks, “That’s why you dragged her to the car?” in response to Dr. Phill’s repeated exclamation mark-inserted statement, “I’ve got to help her!” These statements are ironic because her implied meaning differs from the literal meaning. In these, Dr. Phill expresses his shock at Jason Michmallin’s assertion. She asks Jason Michmallin for confirmation using a questioning tone. Repeatedly using an exclamation tone to add “uh huh!” and “okay!” maintains the irony. What Jason Michmallin has reported is untrue, and she accuses him of being dishonest. The use of irony in her speech violates the quality maxim.

Text 7

“Dr Phill: (addressing Jason Michmallin) See, the reason why I’m not believing this is because you put her in the car,

Jason Michmallin: I could…

Dr Phill: You then clipped her again with a rock, you then strangled her,

Jason Michmallin: I don’t think ... (silence)

Dr Phill: And left her there in the car.

Jason Michmallin: I cannot… 

Dr Phill: Not only that, you pulled her pants CHA. So, it would look like somebody else had done it.

Jason Michmallin: I don’t remember any of it.

Dr Phill: You don’t remember any of it!

Jason Michmallin: I‘m telling you the truth.

Dr Phill: There is no excuse for what you did.

Jason Michmallin: There is none, I agree.”

Jason Michmallin continues his pattern of denying Dr. Phill’s claims that he doesn’t recall from earlier conversations. He told the cops what happened, but the horrific torture he endured at the hands of his wife may make him too afraid to say it publicly. Here, too, he uses avoidance tactics to sidestep an honest admission. He vehemently denies any wrongdoing towards Naomi. The quality standard is breached because his previous admissions to the police or criminal investigations are clearly contradictory. Failure to prevent obscurity also violates the Manner maxim.

When Dr. Phill uses irony to repeat his statement in an emphatic tone, “you don’t remember any of it!” she refuses to accept his evasion and challenges him. In addition to threatening him physically, her use of implication to suggest the reverse of what she says actually violates the quality standard. So, “I’m telling you the truth” is Jason Michmallin’s defence. Jason Michmallin insists he is telling the truth throughout the interview, even after repeatedly challenging Dr. Phill. He makes an effort to avoid looking aggressive. In order to get away with his baseless accusation, he uses the Quality maxim. “There is no excuse for what you did,” Dr. Phill informs Jason Michmallin when she notices his attempt to provide a plausible explanation for his actions. She tells him that his effort will be in vain. As a result, he affirms, “there’s none, I agree.” Consequently, he makes a threat to his face.⁽²²⁾

Table 1. Implicature Strategies Employed in the TV Show with percentages
Strategy	Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
Hedges	33	18,7
Interjections	43	23,1
Irony	31	10,4
Evasion	35	13
Metaphor	54	31,9
Circumlocution	23	12
Total	187	100

Figure 1. Frequency of implicature strategies manipulated by the interviewee

DISCUSSION

The analysis of psychotherapy on *The Dr. Phil Show* presents a complex view. While the show often focuses on guests’ negative behaviors and lacks a positive regard for them, it surprisingly shows some empathy and collaboration. Dr. Phil McGraw’s interactions primarily highlight criticism and personal attacks, which could harm the therapeutic alliance. His approach leans more towards psychoeducation rather than traditional therapy, often directing advice to the audience instead of facilitating change for guests. Although he emphasizes family involvement, this portrayal risks misrepresenting therapy as clients being passive and therapists being overly directive. McGraw’s credibility influences audience perceptions, but his physical interactions and the show’s sensationalized editing may lead to unrealistic expectations about therapy. This misalignment with actual therapeutic practices could discourage individuals from seeking help. Overall, while there are positive elements in McGraw’s focus on family dynamics, the sensationalized representation of therapy highlights the need for more accurate portrayals in media.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, this content analysis of The Dr. Phil Show contributes to cultivation research by addressing criticisms regarding the operationalization of the “real world” in previous studies. By utilizing the common factors framework, the study not only enhances understanding of effective psychotherapy practices but also highlights potential pitfalls in public representations of therapy. The high intercoder reliability achieved in the analysis further strengthens the validity of the findings, setting the stage for future research on the cultivation effects of media portrayals of psychotherapists on viewers’ perceptions. Hedges, Interjections, Evasion, Metaphor, and Circumlocution are approved to very effective strategies used for generating the act of implicature which, in return, instigate the ways of applying inferences to reach to the intended communicative value in communication.

REFERENCES

1. Al-Noori, B.S.M. Al-Mosawi, F.R.A.H. (2017). Investigating iraqi efl college students’ attitude towards using cooperative learning approach in developing reading comprehension skill. Journal of Language Teaching and Research., 8(6). 1073–1080, http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0806.07

2.  Al-Mosawi, F.R.A.H.(2018). Finger Family Collection YouTube Videos Nursery Rhymes Impact on Iraqi EFL Pupils’ Performance in Speaking Skills. Opción, Año 34, Especial No.17 (2018): 452-474.

3. Abdullah Najim Abd Aliwie. (2024). A Pragmatic Study of Irony in Dickens’ ‘A Tale of Two Cities’. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 6(6), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v6i6.7056

4. Ali AL-Mosawy, Z. A., & Habeeb, N. A. (2024). Comparing Some Negative Binomial Regression with Simulation. Salud, Ciencia Y Tecnología - Serie De Conferencias, 3, .1127. https://doi.org/10.56294/sctconf2024.1127

5. Rahimipour, S., 2020. Poetry and Drama: A Survey of Their Applicability to Language Teaching/Learning. International Journal of Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Science, 9(1), pp.72-83.

6. Reyes-Torres, A., 2018. Literatura:(Literature). In The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Language Teaching (pp. 628-640). Routledge.

7. Vattøy, K.D. and Smith, K., 2019. Students’ perceptions of teachers’ feedback practice in teaching English as a foreign language. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, pp.260-268.

8. Albaladejo, S.A., Coyle, Y. and de Larios, J.R., 2018. Songs, stories, and vocabulary acquisition in preschool learners of English as a foreign language. System, 76, pp.116-128.

9. Ibraheema, E. R., Kamilb, S. A., & Mehdic, N. Performance of Iraqi EFL University Learners in Compounding.

10. Van Niejenhuis, C., Otten, S. and Flache, A., 2018. Sojourners’ second language learning and integration. The moderating effect of multicultural personality traits. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 63, pp.68-79.

11. Teng, L.S. and Zhang, L.J., 2020. Empowering learners in the second/foreign language classroom: Can self-regulated learning strategies-based writing instruction make a difference?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 48, p.100701.

12. Cruz, P.A.T., 2018. Teaching literature, teaching identity: Language pedagogy and building a nation through texts and textbooks. In Literature Education in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 153-166). Routledge.

13. Atabekova, A., Lutskovskaia, L. and Gorbatenko, R., 2021. Developing multiliteracy skills and pragmatic communication awareness of university students learning a foreign language (English) for specific purposes. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, p.100956.

14. Arafah, B., 2018. Incorporating the use of literature as an innovative technique for teaching English. KnE Social Sciences, pp.24-36.

15. Najim Abd Aliwie, A. (2025). A Pragmatic Analysis of Persuasive Arguments in the 2011 - 2020 US Presidential Campaign Speeches. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(1), 480–494. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i1.7243

16. Altun, M., 2019. Drama: a neglected source in language teaching to improve communication. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(5), pp.242-253.

17. Gönen, S.İ.K., 2018. Implementing poetry in the language class: a poetry-teaching framework for prospective English language teachers. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(5), pp.28-42.

18. Romero-Carazas R. Collection Management Model for Late Payment Control in the Basic Education Institutions. Edu - Tech Enterprise 2024;2:12–12. https://doi.org/10.71459/edutech202412.

19. Carrasco MÁA, Apaza VTT. Budget execution of public expenditure of the municipalities. Edu - Tech Enterprise 2024;2:10–10. https://doi.org/10.71459/edutech202410.

20. Fidel WWS, Cuicapusa EEM, Espilco POV. Managerial Accounting and its Impact on Decision Making in a small company in the food sector in West Lima. Edu - Tech Enterprise 2024;2:8–8. https://doi.org/10.71459/edutech20248.

21. Raees, C., 2018. Policies, textbooks, and curriculum constraints to integrating literature into language education: EFL teacher perspectives from Russia. Pedagogika, 132(4), pp.178-196.

22. Abd Aliwie, A. N. (2024). A Pragmatic Analysis of Wish Strategies Used by Iraqi EFL Learners. Salud, Ciencia Y Tecnología - Serie De Conferencias, 3, .1151. https://doi.org/10.56294/sctconf2024.1151

FINANCING

The authors did not receive financing for the development of this research.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

AUTHORSHIP CONTRIBUTION

Conceptualization: Adnan Mohaisen Ali Alzuabidi, Mawj Khalil Ibrahim, Estabraq Rasheed Ibrahim.

Project management: Fatima Raheem Almosawi.

Supervision: Adnan Mohaisen Ali Alzuabidi.

Writing – original draft: Adnan Mohaisen Ali Alzuabidi, Mawj Khalil Ibrahim, Estabraq Rasheed Ibrahim, Fatima Raheem Almosawi.

Writing - proofreading and editing: Adnan Mohaisen Ali Alzuabidi.