Hacettepe niversitesi Ejtltlm Fakltesi Dergisi

19911 Sa i: 61 181-187
PRAGMATICS AND LANGUAGE TEACHING
Prof. Dr. Mehmet DEMREZEN (*)
Introduction:
Since Pragmatics is a theory of language performanceand language understan-
ding, it inescapably. overlaps with many neighboring areas of linguistics. Among
theserelated areas. therearepedagogica1linguistics andeducationallinguistics that
aredirectly relatedwith languagelearningandteaching. In languageteaehing, social
interaction is very important because it is mostly culturay based, governing oor
choice of language. In this article, theclpserelationshipbetween pragmatics, which
is another re1atedareaof linguistics, andlanguageteaching, will be takenup. andthe
resultsof suchabeneficial conneetionwill beanalysed.
THE ESSEN CE OF PRAGMATICS
Pragmatics is dermed as the study of the meaningof language utterances with
respect to their contexts. in themnke-upof meaningtherearemanybundtesof featu-
res because we foow a great number of social rules which constraint theway we
speak sincecertainpragmaticfactorsalways influenceoor selectioo of sounds, voca-
bulary items. and other grammatical constructions. Pragmatics places emphasis on
reallanguage use. which necessitates thecodification of thefu range of functions
of language in social contexts. That's why it overlaps with many other neighboring
areas of linguisties. Thus, this case boils down to the realisation of the fact that
Pragmaties unearthshow far thesoica1andsituational eontexts affect understanding
of language and its use. In addition, it expounds thepragmatic meaning, whieh is
thegrasp of meaningfromthearray of sentenees in theeontext. just like theNatio-
nal-funetional approach tries to do, but which can be unearthedonly by pragmatics
anditstechniques.
THE COMPONENTS OF PRAGMA TIC S IN LANGUAGE
TEACHING
In thefield of language waehing, pragmatics most not beconfosed with seman-
ties. Semantics is a study of meaning whieh directly depends on the meaning of
words and linguistic constructions themselves, wheteas pragmatics handles the
(*) Hacctlepc niveraileSi Hakim FaklleSi, Otretim yesi.
281
----
meaningof utterancesthat comefromthecontexL themselves. So pragmatics is one
step ahead of semantics. Theyare complementary to each other, thejob of pragma-
tics startsout at thepoint where semantics ends up. In thefield of language teac-
hing, pragmatics has important components, pragmalinguistics, psycboprag-
matics, and sociopragmatics. The analysis of these three areas yield to
valuable insight to languageteaching.
THE FUNCTION OF PRAGRMALINGUISTICS
. Thecombinationof grammarwitbpragmaticshasproducedanareaof studycal-
100pragmalinguistics. Pragmalinguisties produces practical explanations on gram-
mar, and tries to find tbemost suitable and practical structuresfor utteranees in a
language for teachingpurposes. It is also asub-branehof applied linguistics because
it triesto develop andrecommendtbebest metbodof usein a language. So, pragra-
linguisties presents metbods and tbeories to be applied in language teaching, and
deseribes how we must usetbemin alanguage in acorrect way. It hasalso shown a
good explanationof deixis.
THE FUNCTION OF SOCIOPRAGMATICS
Sociopragmaticsis concernedwitb thelanguageleamingandacquisitionof child-
ren andnon-nativeleamers of foreign languages. It works witb informational source
and shows how tbis information can be praetieally and effectively uiilized. It also
brings tbeories, approaches, andprinciples totbelanguage teachingarea. It searches
how to prepare, organiseor set a lesson plan. Also, it provides tbeways of making
a lesson or a coursedesign to bememorable, productiveeasily learnable, understan-
dable. Then, it contributes to metbolodogy. In addition, it provides implications,
testablebackground, and verification to material development in language teaching
eourses.
THE FUNCTION OF SOCIOPRAGMATICS
This is a recombination of sociolinguistics with pragmatics. It studies thelocal
conditionson language use, beinga sociolgical interfaceof pragmaties. It uneartbs
the culture-specific baekground of language leaming. It emphasises how physical
setting is importantin a teachingprocess of foreign languages. We must remember
here tbe words of B. Malinowsky: meaning is not a passiye contemplation of
thougbt but aclear-cut referenceto agiven culture, becauseeach word is createdby
that society to meet its societal needs in a specific contenl. Words come into being
throughtbeneed-flling motiveof each language.
Sociopragmatics also entailstheassignmentof variedvalues totbeprinciplesand
maxims used in a language. Moreover, it deals witb tbegroup acquisition of a lan-
guage (sometbing like Community Language Learning, Total Physical Response,
ete). It is alsa concerned witb thecommurucativeuseof languagein different social
282
--
situations.Inaddition,it clarifies thebasic featuresanddifficulties of theSpeech Act
Theory of pragmatics and expounds thesocial diffucilties encounteredin theact of
speech. In a way, it shows theways of bestowing the words in~ their meaningful
settings so that words and their relatedassociations fit intoeach other. Then, it fils
in thegap where thegrammatical rulesfait toexplain thespeech acts.
Contrastive Pragmatics, on theother hand, is of great use to unsolve thecross~
cultural problems thatgive hardtimesto languageleamers andteachers. Contrastive
pragmatics is highly, potential to provide beneficial information at thejunctions
where in thegrammatical rules fall short toclear thesituations. Cultural values, set-
ting, and mannerisms.come in toremove this type of dead-ends in language teac-
hing. Thus, sociopragmatics, by nature, explains how, throughour communicative
competence, we uselinguistic features to makesuccessful pragmatic matches bet-
weentheutterancesandverbalbehavior.
.
THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PRAGMATICS TO LANGUAGE
TEACHING AREA
In this respect, one of the major contributionsof pragmatics has been to direet
attention once again to actual language use, which was negleeted by Chomsky's
Transformational Generative Grammar (TGG hencefortb). That is why pragmatics
was set up to answer theshort-comingsof TGG in which thecommunicative com-
petence of a speaker is not very importantthanthecomunicative performance. Be-
cause inTGG thenativespeaker knows thegrammaticalityof thesentences, can de-
teet ambiguir, anomaly, synonymy of sentences,u hecan utter an infnitenumber
of sentences: it is very elear thatTGG deals muchmorewith communicativecompe-
tence.
In a detailed and systematic attack on TGG, John W. Oller has questioned "the
validity andusefulnessof such conceptsas competence, deep structuresandsurface
structures,andoffered pragmaticsasan alternatiyetoTGG becauseit plaeed empha-
sis on reallanguage use. He wantedto seethenotionof deep structurere-interpreted
as meanings, relationbetween situational settings(referents,actions, events, abstract
concepts, ete.) andlinguistic formsrather thanrelations between sentences and un-
derlying sentences" (H.H. Stern, 1984: 177). Chomsky's basic assumption is that
language is a self contained system. 'Inbornideas' constitute thebasic ground for
languageleaming. "But thereis nodiscoverablerelationbetween deep structuresand
situational setting. On thisbasis that I haveproposeda pragmatic theoryof langua-
ge as an alternatiyetoChomsky's Transformational Generative Grammar Approach"
John W. Oller, 1973: 47). Here theinnateideas look like theprinciples of associa-
tion and generalisation constructedintoa complex sensory mechanismand an abs-
tract memory space." It is becauseof therelationwhich linguistic forms toextralin-
guistic settings thatWilliam Janies spokeof the' cash value of words'. This value is
283
n_____
set by therules of usagewhich govem what peoplesay inorder toconvey meaning"
(John W. OIler, 1973: '47). Then, this type of pragmatic attitude reacts against
Chomskian generatiye grammar where in the ideal native speaker-hearer is not a
speaking subject but a mind(bom with a computer in thehead) that identifies with
theneurobiological structureof thebrain.
PRAGMA TlS AND SOME OTHER RELA TED AREAS
It is important to usethelanguage creatively andcorrectly, to usewords sen-
tences in both meaningful and structural settings. To achieve this aim, pragmatics
works with Applied Linguistics in in language teaching area. It supplies certain
theories, suggests theways of practical usagein theclassroom: so it is botha guide
anda safequardtolanguageteachingsinceit helpsinreformingandimprovingclass-
roompracticesof languageteachers.
Since pragmatics is a studyof languageuseandcontext, thewriting of practical
grammars is vivified through real language use. It answers such questions like,
which type of exercises would beappropriateto grammatical drills, at which levels
should they be prepared? Then it is very obvious.that pragmatics by natureis the
real backgroundfor thepedagogical grammars.
Pragmatics also stresses theimportanceof courses on speaking foreign langua-
ges. Then thestudentsshould lakepart inclass to develop his communicativecom-
petence. So, "pragmaticsdefines thegoal of teachingalanguageas inducingthestu-
dent not merely to manipulatethe maingnless sound sequenhces, but to send and
.
receive messages in thelarget language. The necessary andsufficient means for ac-
hieving this objective is theinvolvement of thestudent in creative communication
in thelarget language (John W. OIler, 1973: 47-48). This way pargmaticscan provi-
de solutions to communication problems by searching methods principles for lan-
guage teachingto howdo we teachtoa leamer alanguagetocommunicate.
We can seethepractical resultsof pragmaticson textbooksproducedon notional-
functionallines. Theconcept, known as presuppositionor conversational implicatu-
re, derived fromPhilosophy, hasenteredtheEFI.. textbook. In such dialogues, con-
versations foIlow apredictableformat; by fiHingin theblanks typeof attitudespea-
ker/hearers' tums are selected from a number of comminly used.tpes. By way of
pragmatic implicatures, better controlled dialogues can bedeviced for conversation
classes. This is obviously apragmaticanalysis of daily, normal predictablelanguage
usage.
According toJohn W. OIler, "Pragmatics hasdefiniteimplicationsfor theoriesof
language leaming andmethodsof Janguageteaching. With respeet to material cons-
truction, for instance, it indicatesthestructuresselected shouldbepresentedin mea-
ningful cOntextswhere oral sequences of events areobserved. It also indicates that
284
-_.
~--
pattemdrills shouldbedesigned so that insteadof manipulatingpurely abstract ele-
mentsof averbal ealcalus-usually apoint in syntax- .thestudentsholdbe usinglan-'
guage in responseto a paradigmof situationsinsteadof concentratingon thewords
coming out of his mouth, he should be thinkingabout his ideas in his head he wis-
hes to eommunicate" (John W. Oller, 1973: 47-48).
The differenciation madebetween semantiesandpragmatic factors establishes a
natural basis for the explanation of same of the diffieulties in translations." For
many of thediffieulties whieh undoubtediydo arisein translatingfromlanguage to
language, partieularlywhen eulturesareinvolved arewidely divergent, will noneces-
sarily affeet the universal status of semantie components, sinee these diffieu1ties
may beexplained at thelevel of pragmaties, not by theformal mechanismof seman-
tic theory" (Ruht M. Kempson, 1977: 101)
In general, discourseanalysis rules inexpressingpoliteness; greetings, andother
verbal behavior, andall of whieh is of potential inputfor thelanguage leamer to see
thedifferenees in thetarget language. For example, when German andEnglish lan-
guages arecomparedit hasbeendiscoveredthatGerman speakersinmakingrequests
and eomplaints signifieantly behave moredirectly, andare~ss polite thantheEng-
lish ones. In faet, among the European languages iL is the English language that
uses that uses the word please, as an expressian of kindness and respeet, the most
frequentlyin speech. "textual eonventionssimilarlyvary indifferent languages: wrlt-
ten Arabie, for instance, makes llttleif any distinetionbetween senLeneesandparag-
rahps, andpunetutationconventions, therefore, differ eonsiderably between Arabic
andEnglish (Micheal Stubbs, 1988: 38).
In termsof Applied Pragmatics, it is very obvious that pragmaties has praetieal
andpotential applieationstoall fields with a stock inhow utterancesaredecoded and
thenunderskoadby languageusersandleamers. Being in closeeantact with diseour-
seanalysis, such fields alsa includethestudyof rhetorleandliLerature.It is because
of this inclination of pragmaties that this field or study is known the problem-
solving areaof linguisties.
Pragmaties, by natureandby defnition, preachespraetieaHty,applieatability, and
usefu1nessto thepurpose. For this reason iLhas a high potentialiLyto east light on
aprematureaceeptanceandapplieationof untestedeoneeptsandtheorlesof sociolin-
guisties, pedagogieallinguisties, language planning, nationwide eurrieulumdesign
to edueational praetices. For intanee, around 1988s, Turkish Ministry of Education
hadfavored theBasamakl Kur typeof languageteaehingdesign for thesecondary
schoals andhigh schoals of Turkey, yet thispractieewas not triedby thetechnicali-
ties of pragmaties, neither was therea pilot-applieation of it. The result of this na-
tionwideapplieationof Basamakl Kur was agreat faseo, andsa manystudentssuf-
fered fromthisinadequateeffieieney of theuntestedmethodology. So, it is elear that
285
-- -----
pragmatics is an integral part of educationalIinguistics as well. Here, then, pragma-
tics has a task to point out thelimitations of current approaches, language teaching
theories, anddemonstrateandilluminatetheempirica1basis for theworking catego-
ries, techniqtes,andmethodsutilizedandpractisedat alllevels of teaching.
CONSLUSION
The contributionof pragmatics to language teaching is, thus, undeniable. Prag-
matics, inessence, is a studyof languageandlanguageteachingfromthefunetional
perspective; that is, theperformanceprinciplesof languagearepractised. It is becau-
seof thisreason thatpragmaticsbecomesa theoryof Iinguisticperformanceandlan-
guage undersanding. A clear case of su(;
an explanation is seen in theanalysis of
the "cash value of words", which is established by the rules of usage. The "cash
value of words" is not only dependenton usagebut also on different registersof lan-
guage such as situational setings, colloquial usage, jargons and others that heavily
depend on context. In addition, when the"cash value of words" areadded up to the
words as an extra borden, the rules of usage. cannot be easily solved by the help
taken frompragmatics, which investigates thecases of meaning in thewidest pos-
sible sense. it must bebom in mindthat Speech Act Theory of pragmatics hasbeen
very fruitful in explaining theattitudesof languageusersto arriveat thedeep struc-
tureof themeaningof words.
Pragmalinguistics, psychopragmatics, and sociopragmatics produce highly va-
luable material for language teachersto promotetheir langage teachingactivities by
practical andappIicabletechniques,methods,andapproaches.They also showbenefi-
cial direetions in reformingand improving theclassroompractice. They even help
thespeech pathologists toadvancethecases of brain-damagedpatients. So, pragma-
tics has taken down ~e barriersbetween language and language production. It has
also prepared thecollapse of theTGG grammar which abstracted the ideal native
speaker/hearer by receiving help fromtextlinguistics anddiscoorse analysis which,
too, refused thelimitatitonof linguistics to sentencegrammar.
Bibliography
Aitchson, Jean. 1987. Linguistics. Kent: Hodder and Stoughton Ltd.
Crystal, David. 1987. The Cambridge Encyclopedia ol Language. New
York: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Dascal, Marcelo. 1983. Pragmatics and the Study of Mind.. i. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
286
Kempson, Ruth M. 1977. Semantic Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Leech, Geoffrey. N. 1983. Principles ofPragmatics. New York: Longman.
Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, John. 1981. Language and Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
May, Jacop. 1985. Wbose Language:' A Study on Linguistk Pragma-
tics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Morrish, Charles. 1970. The Pragmatk Movement in American Pbilo-
sophy. New York: George Braziller.
ller, John W. and Perkins, Kyle. 1973. Language in Education: Testing
,
theTexts.: Rowley, Mass.: Nevbury'HousePublishers
ller, John W. 1973. "Some Psycholinguistic Controversies", in Focus on the
Learner: Pragmatk Perspectives for the Language Teaeber, ed.
by John ller W. andJack Richards, Mass. Newbury HousePubl.
Palmer, F.R. 1976. Semantks: A New Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge
Uni. Press
Stern H.H. 1984. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. xford:
xford UniversityPress.
Stubbs, Micheal. 1988. Educutional Linguistics. New York: BasH BlackwelL.
UUmann, Stephen. 1972. Semantics: An Introduction to tbe Science of
Meaning: xford: BasH Blackwell
West, Fred. 1972. Semantics: An Indroduction. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Ine.
Yule, Goerge. 1986. The Study of Language: An Introduction. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
287
---